Re: Page-at-a-time Locking Considerations

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Page-at-a-time Locking Considerations
Date: 2008-02-04 21:10:30
Message-ID: 20080204211030.GL16380@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> > Gregory Stark wrote:
> >> I wonder how hard it would be to shove the clog into regular shared memory
> >> pages and let the clock sweep take care of adjusting the percentage of shared
> >> mem allocated to the clog versus data pages.

> My recollection is that we didn't do that because the standard buffer
> manager has some assumptions that are violated by clog/etc pages ---
> notably the lack of LSNs on the pages. Not sure how hard that is to
> fix. I also note that we'd not really be removing any contention,
> rather just pushing it into the bufmgr. Maybe the bufmgr is now
> scalable enough that it could take the extra load better than SLRU can,
> but this is hardly a given.

Well, in the case of pg_subtrans, I don't think the problem is
contention -- rather, the fact that the number of buffers is fixed and
small.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message 0123 zyxw 2008-02-04 21:26:06 Re: FW: bitemporal functionality for PostgreSQL
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2008-02-04 21:10:13 Re: Page-at-a-time Locking Considerations