Re: Additional LWLOCK_STATS statistics

From: Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Additional LWLOCK_STATS statistics
Date: 2015-09-15 19:51:38
Message-ID: 55F876CA.8020702@redhat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 09/15/2015 03:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I haven't really, just the email. But it seems like a neat concept.
> So if I understand this correctly:
>
> 74.05% of spin delays are attributable to CLogControLock, 20.01% to
> ProcArrayLock, and 3.39% to XidGenLock. Incredibly, the queue length
> reaches the number of backends (80) for both CLogControlLock and
> XidGenLock, but for ProcArrayLock it "only" reaches a length of 75.
>

74, as the "real" information is above the "call stack". The spin delay
report is filtered on > 0 - so only LWLock's that has any spin delay are
included.

Only the weight report shows all locks.

> This seems to suggest that relieving pressure on CLogControlLock would
> be very beneficial, but I'm not sure what else to make of it.

I have done some runs with Amit's CLogControlLock patch, but currently
it doesn't show any improvements. I'm trying to figure out why.

> It
> would be nice to get a better sense of how *long* we block on various
> locks. It's hard to tell whether some other lock might be have fewer
> blocking events but for a much longer average duration.
>

Yes, that would be interesting.

Best regards,
Jesper

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-09-15 19:57:14 Re: Multi-tenancy with RLS
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2015-09-15 19:50:46 Re: RLS open items are vague and unactionable