Re: Separating Buffer LWlocks
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Separating Buffer LWlocks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+Tgmobnmn=prSXkZB9Z1-fxAYj2+c35DGXfHuiFzvUBgqTENQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Separating Buffer LWlocks (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Separating Buffer LWlocks
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-09-08 13:29:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> I like this approach, though I think clearly it needs more performance testing. > > Yea, obviously. I did run this on a slightly bigger machine yesterday > and it gave consistent ~8% performance improvements. Wow, nice. >> The method of determining the tranche IDs is totally awful, though. I >> assume that's just a dirty hack for the POC and not something you'd >> seriously consider doing. > > If you're referring to assigning fixed ids in the guts of lwlocks.c - > yea, that was really more of a quick hack. I think we should put a enum > into lwlock.h with fixed tranch ids with the final member being > LWTRANCHE_FIRST_DYNAMIC or so. We could do that, but I'm not sure just calling LWLockNewTrancheId() for all of the tranches would be so bad either. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: