From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, "Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:32:36 -0400
Message-ID: <29080.1236821556@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49B7F470.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
References: <49B824DD.7090302@sun.com>
<49B7F470.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> I'm wondering about the testing methodology.
Me too. This test case seems much too far away from real world use
to justify diddling low-level locking behavior; especially a change
that is obviously likely to have very negative effects in other
scenarios. In particular, I think it would lead to complete starvation
of would-be exclusive lockers in the face of competition from a steady
stream of shared lockers. AFAIR the existing behavior was designed
to reduce the odds of that, not for any other purpose.
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, Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov, J.K.Shah@Sun.COM
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
In-Reply-To: <29080.1236821556@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