| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Paul Friedman <paul(dot)friedman(at)streetlightdata(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: LWLocks by LockManager slowing large DB |
| Date: | 2021-04-13 23:16:46 |
| Message-ID: | 3428578.1618355806@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
I wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> Cool. And damn: I can't immediately think of a way to optimize this to
>> not require this kind of hack in the future.
> Maybe the same thing we do with user tables, ie not give up the lock
> when we close a toast rel? As long as the internal lock counters
> are 64-bit, we'd not have to worry about overflowing them.
Like this? This passes check-world, modulo the one very-unsurprising
regression test change. I've not tried to do any performance testing.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| keep-toast-relation-locks-1.patch | text/x-diff | 4.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-04-14 01:01:58 | Re: LWLocks by LockManager slowing large DB |
| Previous Message | Paul Friedman | 2021-04-13 22:45:12 | RE: LWLocks by LockManager slowing large DB |