| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FlexLocks |
| Date: | 2011-11-15 22:54:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYjBS3xotBuZ+GTxfTpnNLT7c2Gyx6=vS9xN11BxEdvZw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> As Kevin says nearby it's likely that we could find some way to
>> rewrite the SLRU (clog and such) locking protocol using these new
>> things too.
>
> Yeah, I really meant all SLRU, not just clog. And having seen what
> Robert has done here, I'm kinda glad I haven't gotten around to
> trying to reduce LW lock contention yet, even though we're getting
> dangerously far into the release cycle -- I think it can be done
> much better with the, er, flexibility offered by the FlexLock patch.
I've had a thought that the SLRU machinery could benefit from having
the concept of a "pin", which it currently doesn't. I'm not certain
whether that thought is correct.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-11-15 23:14:53 | Re: pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only |
| Previous Message | Royce Ausburn | 2011-11-15 22:29:01 | Re: [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring |