| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention |
| Date: | 2015-08-20 10:11:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KiO5ZoJKNpeqoMswuT6SdPQ+1XJ=CspF4jSN439k9bjw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >
> >
> > How hard did you try checking whether this causes regressions? This
> > increases the number of atomics in the commit path a fair bit. I doubt
> > it's really bad, but it seems like a good idea to benchmark something
> > like a single full-throttle writer and a large number of readers.
> >
>
> I think the case which you want to stress is when the patch doesn't
> have any benefit (like single writer case)
>
I mean to say single writer, multiple readers.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-08-20 10:19:40 | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-08-20 10:08:36 | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention |