| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jeffrey W(dot) Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
| Date: | 2001-12-29 23:09:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20261.1009667366@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> We might want to think about making bufmgr locking more fine-grained
>> ... in a future release. For 7.2 I don't really want to mess around
>> with the bufmgr logic at this late hour. Too risky.
> You want a TODO item on this?
Sure. But don't phrase it as just a bufmgr problem. Maybe:
* Make locking of shared data structures more fine-grained
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-12-30 01:23:42 | Latest datetime changes produce gcc complaints |
| Previous Message | Pavlo Baron | 2001-12-29 22:06:48 | Re: TODO question |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-12-30 01:50:48 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-12-29 21:09:56 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |