Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention
| От | Amit Kapila |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA4eK1Jcc=1o=Sc+QFt6K_6ROB13q-AXxGo9zmjSYbuBgGAcVw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On 30 June 2015 at 04:21, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Now, I would like to briefly explain how allow-one-waker idea has
>> helped to improve the patch as not every body here was present
>> in that Un-conference.
>
>
> The same idea applies for marking commits in clog, for which I have been sitting on a patch for a month or so and will post now I'm done travelling.
>
Sure and I think we might want to try something similar even
>
> On 30 June 2015 at 04:21, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Now, I would like to briefly explain how allow-one-waker idea has
>> helped to improve the patch as not every body here was present
>> in that Un-conference.
>
>
> The same idea applies for marking commits in clog, for which I have been sitting on a patch for a month or so and will post now I'm done travelling.
>
Sure and I think we might want to try something similar even
for XLogFlush where we use LWLockAcquireOrWait for
WALWriteLock, not sure how it will workout in that case as
I/O is involved, but I think it is worth trying.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: