| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, tender wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock |
| Date: | 2023-12-18 17:30:11 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa1iMi=mRqGP0H5-_mzzUM0CDqoZBk2oZYCUpyzj2cM2Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 12:04 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> certain sense they are competing for the same job. However, they do
> aim to alleviate different TYPES of contention: the group XID update
> stuff should be most valuable when lots of processes are trying to
> update the same page, and the banks should be most valuable when there
> is simultaneous access to a bunch of different pages. So I'm not
> convinced that this patch is a reason to remove the group XID update
> mechanism, but someone might argue otherwise.
Hmm, but, on the other hand:
Currently all readers and writers are competing for the same LWLock.
But with this change, the readers will (mostly) no longer be competing
with the writers. So, in theory, that might reduce lock contention
enough to make the group update mechanism pointless.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-12-18 17:32:47 | Re: common signal handler protection |
| Previous Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2023-12-18 17:21:59 | Re: Add --check option to pgindent |