From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention |
Date: | 2015-06-29 17:22:02 |
Message-ID: | CANP8+j+vwu4UK+zJV-wUE=8x1FeFTQKArZ07qDnFm0yu5FMpKg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 29 June 2015 at 18:11, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On June 29, 2015 7:02:10 PM GMT+02:00, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >On 29 June 2015 at 16:27, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Thanks to Robert Haas for having discussion (offlist) about the idea
> >> and suggestions to improve it and also Andres Freund for having
> >> discussion and sharing thoughts about this idea at PGCon.
> >>
> >
> >Weird. This patch is implemented exactly the way I said to implement it
> >publicly at PgCon.
> >
> >Was nobody recording the discussion at the unconference??
>
> Amit presented an earlier version of this at the in unconference?
>
Yes, I know. And we all had a long conversation about how to do it without
waking up the other procs.
Forming a list, like we use for sync rep and having just a single process
walk the queue was the way I suggested then and previously.
Weird.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2015-06-29 17:40:56 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-06-29 17:11:04 | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention |