From: | "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: User concurrency thresholding: where do I look? |
Date: | 2007-07-20 20:51:39 |
Message-ID: | 46A1205B.8010205@sun.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
sorry..
The are solaris mutex locks used by the postgresql process.
What its saying is that there are holds/waits in trying to get locks
which are locked at Solaris user library levels called from the
postgresql functions:
For example both the following functions are hitting on the same mutex
lock 0x10059e280 in Solaris Library call:
postgres`AllocSetDelete+0x98
postgres`AllocSetAlloc+0x1c4
I need to enable the DTrace probes on my builds
-Jignesh
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jignesh K. Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
>
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> So follow that up --- try to determine which lock is being contended
>>> for. There's some very crude code in the sources that you can enable
>>> with -DLWLOCK_STATS, but probably DTrace would be a better tool.
>>>
>
>
>> Using plockstat -A -s 5 -p $pid
>>
>
> I don't know what that is, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do
> with Postgres LWLocks or spinlocks, which are the locks I was thinking of.
> Try asking Robert Lor about this --- IIRC he had some dtrace probes to
> work with our locks.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-07-20 20:57:34 | Re: User concurrency thresholding: where do I look? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-07-20 20:16:01 | Re: User concurrency thresholding: where do I look? |