From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: LWLock Queue Jumping |
Date: | 2009-08-30 12:22:41 |
Message-ID: | 1251634961.4839.1532.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2009-08-30 at 09:03 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> The Hot Standby thing has been discussed, but no-one has actually posted
> a patch which does the locking correctly, where the ProcArrayLock is
> held while the SnapshotData WAL record is inserted. So there is no
> evidence that it's actually a problem, we might be making a mountain out
> of a molehill. It will have practically no effect on throughput, given
> how seldom SnapshotData records are written (once per checkpoint), but
> if it causes a significant bump to response times, that might be a problem.
>
> This is a good idea to keep in mind, but right now it feels like a
> solution in search of a problem.
The most important thing is to get HS committed and to do that I think
it is important that I show you I am willing to respond to review
comments. So I will implement it the way you propose and defer any
further discussion about lock contention. The idea here is a simple fix
and very easy enough to return to later, if we need it.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz | 2009-08-30 13:26:32 | Re: clang's static checker report. |
Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2009-08-30 12:01:55 | PQexecPrepared() behavior |