Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>
Cc: Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
Date: 2009-03-20 15:55:45
Message-ID: 14217.1237564545@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> writes:
> As for ProcArrayLock, it sounds like it is very much a special case.

Quite. Read the section "Interlocking Transaction Begin, Transaction
End, and Snapshots" in src/backend/access/transam/README before
proposing any changes in this area --- it's a lot more delicate than
one might think. We'd have partitioned the ProcArray long ago if
it wouldn't have broken the transaction system.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff 2009-03-20 17:01:42 Re: current transaction in productive database
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-03-20 15:46:01 Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4