Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock
| От | Dilip Kumar | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFiTN-u1-TM6s9medMvUXuNjfKdNNwA9eXUzA_YDsqwH12jz+w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст  | 
		
| Ответ на | Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>) | 
| Ответы | 
                	
            		Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock
            		
            		 | 
		
| Список | pgsql-hackers | 
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 4:55 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > The more I look at TransactionGroupUpdateXidStatus, the more I think > it's broken, and while we do have some tests, I don't have confidence > that they cover all possible cases. > > Or, at least, if this code is good, then it hasn't been sufficiently > explained. Any thought about a case in which you think it might be broken, I mean any vague thought might also help where you think it might not work as expected so that I can also think in that direction. It might be possible that I might not be thinking of some perspective that you are thinking and comments might be lacking from that point of view. > If we have multiple processes trying to write bits to clog, and they are > using different banks, then the LWLockConditionalAcquire will be able to > acquire the bank lock Do you think there is a problem with multiple processes getting the lock? I mean they are modifying different CLOG pages so that can be done concurrently right? -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: