Re: Why are we waiting?

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Staale Smedseng" <Staale(dot)Smedseng(at)Sun(dot)COM>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why are we waiting?
Date: 2008-02-06 14:56:16
Message-ID: 87ir12uoa7.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Staale Smedseng" <Staale(dot)Smedseng(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:

> The stack trace shows that the only time the lock is acquired
> exclusively is from the call to ProcArrayEndTransaction() in
> CommitTransaction().

I'm not sure but I think that's only true in 8.3. As I understood it in 8.2
transaction start also needed the exclusive lock.

> Also, an interesting observation is that the hot locks seem to have
> changed from v8.2 to v8.3, making the ProcArrayLock more contended. See
> the following outputs:
>
> PostgreSQL 8.2 (32-bit):
>...
> PostgreSQL 8.3 (64-bit):
>...

I'm not sure 32-bit and 64-bit cases are going to be directly comparable. We
could have a problem with cache line aliasing on only one or the other for
example.

But that is a pretty striking difference. Does the 8.3 run complete more
transactions in that time?

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2008-02-06 15:13:24 pg_dump additional options for performance
Previous Message Dave Page 2008-02-06 14:49:24 Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan