Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64FC86342DA for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:58:50 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38764-02-2 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:58:43 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from EXHUB018-1.exch018.msoutlookonline.net (exhub018-1.exch018.msoutlookonline.net [64.78.17.16]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F258F634179 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:58:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: from EXVMBX018-1.exch018.msoutlookonline.net ([64.78.17.47]) by EXHUB018-1.exch018.msoutlookonline.net ([64.78.17.16]) with mapi; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:58:45 -0700 From: Scott Carey To: Bruce Momjian , Robert Haas CC: Greg Smith , "Jignesh K. Shah" , Kevin Grittner , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:58:44 -0700 Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4 Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4 Thread-Index: AcmouWhVpjJoJ9NMRdeSJC0X9yTh+QAHBTyt Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200903191737.n2JHbZU15353@momjian.us> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.000 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200903/273 X-Sequence-Number: 33195 On 3/19/09 10:37 AM, "Bruce Momjian" wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >>> The original poster's request is for a config parameter, for experiment= ation >>> and testing by the brave. My own request was for that version of the lo= ck to >>> prevent possible starvation but improve performance by unlocking all sh= ared >>> at once, then doing all exclusives one at a time next, etc. >>=20 >> That doesn't prevent starvation in general, although it will for some >> workloads. >>=20 >> Anyway, it seems rather pointless to add a config parameter that isn't >> at all safe, and adds overhead to a critical part of the system for >> people who don't use it. After all, if you find that it helps, what >> are you going to do? Turn it on in production? I just don't see how >> this is any good other than as a thought-experiment. >=20 > We prefer things to be auto-tuned, and if not, it should be clear > how/when to set the configuration parameter. Of course. The proposal was to leave it at the default, and obviously document that it is not likely to be used. Its 1000x safer than fsync=3Dof= f . . . >=20 > -- > Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com >=20 > + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + >=20