On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Not true, please refer to code at line 544, as I already indicated.
>>
>> My understanding of the instrumentation is that the lock acquired at
>> line 526 will show as the blocker until we reach line 555, so anything
>> in between could be responsible for the wait.
>
> Hm, but then wouldn't the lock acquisition at line 544 be showing up as well?
Some time ago on this thread, I wrote:
"Anyway, just to note that it might not be I/O and we need to find out."
Do you consider this proof that it can only be I/O? Or do we still
need to find out?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services