| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager |
| Date: | 2018-04-10 16:40:12 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYE5DgXVP+FgAoTmNatT_1YFHoMGUTMzzHTmpRveMw5tA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:40 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The probability of performance degradation can be reduced by
> increasing N_RELEXTLOCK_ENTS. But as Robert mentioned, while keeping
> fast and simple implementation like acquiring lock by a few atomic
> operation it's hard to improve or at least keep the current
> performance on all cases. I was thinking that this patch is necessary
> by parallel DML operations and vacuum but if the community cannot
> accept this approach it might be better to mark it as "Rejected" and
> then I should reconsider the design of parallel vacuum.
I'm sorry that I didn't get time to work further on this during the
CommitFest. In terms of moving forward, I'd still like to hear what
Andres has to say about the comments I made on March 1st.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-04-10 16:40:17 | pg_dump should use current_database() instead of PQdb() |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2018-04-10 16:38:27 | Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS |