Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock

From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock
Date: 2023-11-24 04:47:54
Message-ID: CAFiTN-vkzpDMysNvmDC0gvnH3ppmmnTTkACj6x9ovW=3XCG4Ow@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:34 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Note: With this testing, we have found a bug in the bank-wise
> approach, basically we are clearing a procglobal->clogGroupFirst, even
> before acquiring the bank lock that means in most of the cases there
> will be a single process in each group as a group leader

I realized that the bug fix I have done is not proper, so will send
the updated patch set with the proper fix soon.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2023-11-24 05:00:42 Re: PL/pgSQL: Incomplete item Allow handling of %TYPE arrays, e.g. tab.col%TYPE[]
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2023-11-24 04:18:07 Re: trying again to get incremental backup