Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock
| От | Heikki Linnakangas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 4EEB4AD0.6090105@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 16.12.2011 15:03, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> On 16.12.2011 14:37, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> >>> I already proposed a design for that using page-level share locks any >>> reason not to go with that? >> >> Sorry, I must've missed that. Got a link? > > From nearly 4 years ago. > > http://grokbase.com/t/postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008/02/reworking-wal-locking/145qrhllcqeqlfzntvn7kjefijey Ah, thanks. That is similar to what I'm experimenting, but a second lwlock is still fairly heavy-weight. I think with many backends, you will be beaten badly by contention on the spinlocks alone. I'll polish up and post what I've been experimenting with, so we can discuss that. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: