Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 14704.1001551611@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal (Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> writes: > (Actually, though, Postgres is already vulnerable to erratic behaviour > because any backend process can corrupt the shared buffer pool.) Not to mention the other parts of shared memory. Nonetheless, our experience has been that cross-backend failures due to memory clobbers in shared memory are very infrequent --- certainly far less often than we see localized-to-a-backend crashes. Probably this is because the shared memory is (a) small compared to the rest of the address space and (b) only accessed by certain specific modules within Postgres. I'm convinced that switching to a thread model would result in a significant degradation in our ability to recover from coredump-type failures, even given the (implausible) assumption that we introduce no new bugs during the conversion. I'm also *un*convinced that such a conversion will yield significant performance benefits, unless we introduce additional cross-thread dependencies (and more fragility and lock contention) by tactics such as sharing catalog caches across threads. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: