| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | david(at)lang(dot)hm |
| Cc: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Dimitri <dimitrik(dot)fr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Flavio Henrique Araque Gurgel <flavio(at)4linux(dot)com(dot)br>, Fabrix <fabrixio1(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Scalability in postgres |
| Date: | 2009-06-05 02:07:46 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070906041907x59e014fu7f04bb8c67b8f9e9@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 8:51 PM, <david(at)lang(dot)hm> wrote:
> if this is the case, how hard would it be to have threads add and remove
> themselves from some list as they get busy/become idle?
>
> I've been puzzled as I've been watching this conversation on what internal
> locking/lookup is happening that is causing the problems with idle threads
> (the pure memory overhead isn't enough to account for the problems that are
> being reported)
That's because this thread has altogether too much theory and
altogether too little gprof. :-)
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Mielke | 2009-06-05 03:37:01 | Re: Scalability in postgres |
| Previous Message | david | 2009-06-05 01:04:07 | Re: Scalability in postgres |