From: Aleksander Alekseev <a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 20:42:19 +0300
Message-ID: <20151211204219.273b3acb@fujitsu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151211191441.3cc507b5@fujitsu>
References: <20151211170001.78ded9d7@fujitsu>
<772.1449847830@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20151211191441.3cc507b5@fujitsu>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
Oops. s/approve or disapprove/confirm or deny/
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 19:14:41 +0300
Aleksander Alekseev <a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> Hello, Tom
>
> I see your point, but I would like to clarify a few things.
>
> 1. Do we consider described measurement method good enough to conclude
> that sometimes PostgreSQL really spends 3 ms in a spinlock (like a RTT
> between two Internet hosts in the same city)? If not, what method
> should be used to approve or disapprove this?
>
> 2. If we agree that PostgreSQL does sometimes spend 3 ms in a spinlock
> do we consider this a problem?
>
> 3. If we consider this a problem, what method is considered
> appropriate to find a real reason of such behaviour so we could fix
> it?
>
> Best regards,
> Aleksander
>
>
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex
In-Reply-To: <20151211204219.273b3acb@fujitsu>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox