Re: Latches vs lwlock contention

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Thomas Munro
Тема Re: Latches vs lwlock contention
Дата
Msg-id CA+hUKG+UfnpJwxUJO-XoAJ-JabXAhmkTwwjG8HLfi7XiQz_bxA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Latches vs lwlock contention  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Latches vs lwlock contention  (vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 4:56 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> See attached sketch patches.  I guess the main thing that may not be
> good enough is the use of a fixed sized latch buffer.  Memory
> allocation in don't-throw-here environments like the guts of lock code
> might be an issue, which is why it just gives up and flushes when
> full; maybe it should try to allocate and fall back to flushing only
> if that fails.

Here's an attempt at that.  There aren't actually any cases of uses of
this stuff in critical sections here, so perhaps I shouldn't bother
with that part.  The part I'd most like some feedback on is the
heavyweight lock bits.  I'll add this to the commitfest.

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andy Fan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Prefetch the next tuple's memory during seqscans
Следующее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCH] Improve tab completion for ALTER TABLE on identity columns