| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jens-Wolfhard Schicke-Uffmann <drahflow(at)gmx(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Contention on LWLock buffer_content, due to SHARED lock(?) |
| Date: | 2019-12-10 22:12:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20191210221252.GA24679@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Dec-10, Jens-Wolfhard Schicke-Uffmann wrote:
> More troubling (to me) is that I already know of another table in the
> system which should be next-in-line for the same problem, but only on
> some rows: It represents accounting entities, of which a very (nearly
> static) few are payment processors and all others are customers. From
> the application's perspective there's not too much difference between
> those, but any customer row will typically only be share locked once,
> whereas share locks on payment processor rows will be held by most of
> the transactions currently active.
Well, you could partition that table. This probably means you'll need
to improve Postgres implementation of PKs on partitioned tables, though.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-12-10 22:23:03 | Re: Contention on LWLock buffer_content, due to SHARED lock(?) |
| Previous Message | Jens-Wolfhard Schicke-Uffmann | 2019-12-10 22:08:34 | Re: Contention on LWLock buffer_content, due to SHARED lock(?) |