From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "lingce(dot)ldm" <lingce(dot)ldm(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Problem with synchronous replication |
Date: | 2019-10-31 08:38:32 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwEW1P6LS36go9EF=tx3kVaLZrmm=YkEBs3GXZGpT9j4hg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:12 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 05:43:04PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Wed, 30 Oct 2019 17:21:17 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> >> This change causes every ending backends to always take the exclusive lock
> >> even when it's not in SyncRep queue. This may be problematic, for example,
> >> when terminating multiple backends at the same time? If yes,
> >> it might be better to check SHMQueueIsDetached() again after taking the lock.
> >> That is,
> >
> > I'm not sure how much that harms but double-checked locking
> > (releasing) is simple enough for reducing possible congestion here, I
> > think.
>
> FWIW, I could not measure any actual difference with pgbench -C, up to
> 500 sessions and an empty input file (just have one meta-command) and
> -c 20.
>
> I have added some comments in SyncRepCleanupAtProcExit(), and adjusted
> the patch with the suggestion from Fujii-san. Any comments?
Thanks for the patch! Looks good to me.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | amul sul | 2019-10-31 08:41:03 | Can avoid list_copy in recomputeNamespacePath() conditionally? |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2019-10-31 08:18:46 | Re: [PATCH] Do not use StdRdOptions in Access Methods |