Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
> On 2014-11-11 09:29:22 +0000, Thom Brown wrote:
> > On 26 September 2014 12:40, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But this gets at another point: the way we're benchmarking this
right
> > > > now, we're really conflating the effects of three different things:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Changing the locking regimen around the freelist and clocksweep.
> > > > 2. Adding a bgreclaimer process.
> > > > 3. Raising the number of buffer locking partitions.
> > >
> > > First of all thanks for committing part-1 of this changes and it
> > > seems you are planing to commit part-3 based on results of tests
> > > which Andres is planing to do and for remaining part (part-2), today
> > >
> >
> > Were parts 2 and 3 committed in the end?
>
> 3 was committed. 2 wasn't because it's not yet clear whether how
> beneficial it is generally.
>

As shown upthread that this patch (as it stands today) is dependent on
another patch (wait free LW_SHARED acquisition) which is still not
committed and still some more work is needed to clearly show the
gain by this patch, so I have marked it as "Returned with Feedback".

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com