From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Scott Carey <scott@richrelevance.com>
Cc: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
Cc: Jignesh K. Shah <J.K.Shah@sun.com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:16:44 -0400
Message-ID: <12292.1236964604@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <603c8f070903121829r31cf1472ha9876e5c480a542e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.GSO.2.01.0903121613270.1925@westnet.com>
<C5DED7A7.33B2%scott@richrelevance.com>
<603c8f070903121829r31cf1472ha9876e5c480a542e@mail.gmail.com>
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I think that changing the locking behavior is attacking the problem at
> the wrong level anyway.
Right. By the time a patch here could have any effect, you've already
lost the game --- having to deschedule and reschedule a process is a
large cost compared to the typical lock hold time for most LWLocks. So
it would be better to look at how to avoid blocking in the first place.
regards, tom lane
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, scott@richrelevance.com, gsmith@gregsmith.com, J.K.Shah@sun.com, Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
In-Reply-To: <12292.1236964604@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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