| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |
| Date: | 2016-04-13 19:22:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20160413192202.3bf3l6zs4grlujml@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-04-13 14:08:49 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> > I'll run with -1 once the current (longer) run has finished.
>
> Just for the record, were any of the other results purporting to be
> with the feature "off" also actually running with the feature set
> for its fastest possible timeout?
Yes, I'd only used 0 / 10. I think that shows that the contention, for
me, is primarily the lwlock, not the spinlock.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-04-13 20:01:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-04-13 19:21:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-04-13 19:23:18 | Re: SET ROLE and reserved roles |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-04-13 19:21:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |