Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 20:42:19 +0300
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
Message-ID: <20151211204219.273b3acb@fujitsu>
In-Reply-To: <20151211191441.3cc507b5@fujitsu>
References: <20151211170001.78ded9d7@fujitsu> <772.1449847830@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20151211191441.3cc507b5@fujitsu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

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