From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance TODO items |
Date: | 2001-07-30 17:15:40 |
Message-ID: | 200107301715.f6UHFe310576@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > New TODO entries are:
> >
> > * Order duplicate index entries by tid
>
> In other words - add tid to index key: very old idea.
I was thinking during index creation, it would be nice to order them by
tid, but not do lots of work to keep it that way.
> > * Add queue of backends waiting for spinlock
>
> We shouldn't mix two different approaches for different
> kinds of short-time internal locks - in one cases we need in
> light lmgr (when we're going to keep lock long enough, eg for IO)
> and in another cases we'd better to proceed with POSIX' mutex-es
> or semaphores instead of spinlocks. Queueing backends waiting
> for spinlock sounds like nonsense - how are you going to protect
> such queue? With spinlocks? -:)
Yes, I guess so but hopefully we can spin waiting for the queue lock
rather than sleep. We could use POSIX spinlocks/semaphores now but we
don't because of performance, right?
Should we be spinning waiting for spinlock on multi-cpu machines? Is
that the answer?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fernando Nasser | 2001-07-30 17:24:26 | Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison" |
Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-07-30 17:12:22 | RE: Performance TODO items |