From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 9.5 release notes |
Date: | 2015-06-24 01:08:36 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYaMX9xU=wNdRi8UB=mJFU7zKNrUBFLGSauMxVSVLvqZA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>>> <listitem>
>>> <para>
>>> Improve concurrent locking and buffer scan performance (Andres
>>> Freund, Kevin Grittner)
>>> </para>
>>> </listitem>
>>
>> If this is ab5194e6f, I don't think it makes sense to mention "buffer
>> scan" - it's just any lwlock, and buffer locks aren't the primary
>> benefit (ProcArrayLock, buffer mapping lock probably are that). I also
>
>> don't think Kevin was involved?
>
> It seems likely that 2ed5b87f9 was combined with something else in
> this reference. By reducing buffer pins and buffer content locking
> during btree index scans it shows a slight performance gain in
> btree scans and avoids some blocking of btree index vacuuming.
I think maybe we should separate that back out. The list needs to be
user-accessible, but if it's hard to understand what it's referring
to, that's not good either.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2015-06-24 01:11:09 | Re: less log level for success dynamic background workers for 9.5 |
Previous Message | Kouhei Kaigai | 2015-06-24 00:42:23 | Re: upper planner path-ification |