| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, testperf-general(at)pgfoundry(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [Testperf-general] Re: ExclusiveLock |
| Date: | 2004-11-22 00:40:07 |
| Message-ID: | 1101084007.2869.75.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 16:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 22:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> If it is a problem, the LockBuffer calls in RelationGetBufferForTuple
> >> would be the places showing contention delays.
>
> > You say this as if we can easily check that.
>
> I think this can be done with oprofile ...
OK, well thats where this thread started.
oprofile only tells us aggregate information. It doesn't tell us how
much time is spent waiting because of contention issues, it just tells
us how much time is spent and even that is skewed.
There really ought to be a better way to instrument things from inside,
based upon knowledge of the code.
--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-11-22 03:40:29 | Beta5 now Available |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-11-21 23:32:53 | Re: Beta5 in ~4 hours ... |