Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex
От | Aleksander Alekseev |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20160211171101.33f34160@fujitsu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello, Robert > Thanks, this looks way better. Some more comments: > > - I don't think there's any good reason for this patch to change the > calling convention for ShmemInitHash(). Maybe that's a good idea and > maybe it isn't, but it's a separate issue from what this patch is > doing, and if we're going to do it at all, it should be discussed > separately. Let's leave it out of this patch. > > - I would not provide an option to change the number of freelist > mutexes. Let's dump DEFAULT_MUTEXES_NUM and MAX_MUTEXES_NUM and have > FREELIST_MUTEXES_NUM. The value of 32 which you selected is fine with > me. > > - The change to LOG2_NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS in lwlock.h looks like an > independent change. Again, leave it out of this patch and submit it > separately with its own benchmarking data if you want to argue for it. > > I think if you make these changes this patch will be quite a bit > smaller and in pretty good shape. > > Thanks for working on this. > Here is a corrected patch. I decided to keep a small change in InitLocks procedure (lock.c) since ShmemInitHash description clearly states "For a table whose maximum size is certain, [init_size] should be equal to max_size". Also I added two items to my TODO list to send more patches as soon (and if) this patch will be applied. Thanks for your contribution to this patch.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: