From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Reducing ClogControlLock contention |
Date: | 2015-06-30 08:31:42 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JjRKsBkjkPWQkNFV+Eej==aSQRYerpWytRyy_s9OxQYA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 30 June 2015 at 08:13, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>>
>>
>> Could it be possible to see some performance numbers? For example with a
simple pgbench script doing a bunch of tiny transactions, with many
concurrent sessions (perhaps hundreds).
>
>
> I'm more interested to see if people think it is safe.
>
> This contention is masked by contention elsewhere, e.g. ProcArrayLock, so
the need for testing here should come once other patches ahead of this are
in.
>
Exactly and other lock that can mask this improvement is WALWriteLock,
but for that we can take the performance data with synchronous_commit
off mode.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2015-06-30 08:32:44 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |
Previous Message | dinesh kumar | 2015-06-30 08:09:09 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |