Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jim Van Fleet
Тема Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts
Дата
Msg-id OF441644EF.E58D56C9-ON86258136.00710DD9-86258136.00713C9A@notes.na.collabserv.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multipleparts  (Sokolov Yura <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
NP, Sokolov --

pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org wrote on 06/05/2017 03:26:46 PM:

> From: Sokolov Yura <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>
> To: Jim Van Fleet <vanfleet@us.ibm.com>
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Date: 06/05/2017 03:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into
> multiple parts
> Sent by: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
>
> Excuse me, Jim.
>
> I was tired and misunderstand proposal: I thought of ProcArray
> sharding, but proposal is about ProcArrayLock sharding.
>
> BTW, I just posted improvement to LWLock:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/
> 2968c0be065baab8865c4c95de3f435c%40postgrespro.ru
>
> Would you mind to test against that and together with that?

I will give them a try ..

Jim

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Sokolov Yura
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multipleparts
Следующее
От: Thomas Munro
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table