Re: Further reduction of bufmgr lock contention

Gavin Hamill <gdh@acentral.co.uk> writes:
> It's been about a month since the last activity on bufmgr as documented 
> on the hackers list and I was just concerned that this issue had been 
> filed as an interesting toy at the time, but now left for the circular 
> filing cabinet :)

> Tom + Simon were able to see a fairly easy 25% performance boost against 
> our dataset and I'd obv. be very keen to see this work make it into 
> 8.1.4 or 8.2.0 :)

We're certainly not putting any such thing into 8.1.*.  The proposed
patch for 8.2 is stalled ATM because of the problem of not having a
predictable size for the per-partition hash tables.  Fixed-size shared
memory is a harsh mistress :-(
        regards, tom lane