Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYE5DgXVP+FgAoTmNatT_1YFHoMGUTMzzHTmpRveMw5tA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:40 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > The probability of performance degradation can be reduced by > increasing N_RELEXTLOCK_ENTS. But as Robert mentioned, while keeping > fast and simple implementation like acquiring lock by a few atomic > operation it's hard to improve or at least keep the current > performance on all cases. I was thinking that this patch is necessary > by parallel DML operations and vacuum but if the community cannot > accept this approach it might be better to mark it as "Rejected" and > then I should reconsider the design of parallel vacuum. I'm sorry that I didn't get time to work further on this during the CommitFest. In terms of moving forward, I'd still like to hear what Andres has to say about the comments I made on March 1st. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: