Fw: HACKERS[PATCH] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts -- follow-up

Howdy --

Not to beat on a dead horse, or anything, but this fix was frowned upon
because in one environment (one socket) it was 6% down and over 15% up in
the right environment (two sockets).

So, why not add a configuration parameter which specifies the number of
parts? Default is 1 which would be "exactly" the same as no parts and
hence no degradation in the single socket environment -- and with 2, you
get some positive performance.

Jim
----- Forwarded by Jim Van Fleet/Austin/Contr/IBM on 09/21/2017 03:37 PM
-----

pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org wrote on 06/09/2017 01:39:35 PM:

> From: "Jim Van Fleet" <vanfleet(at)us(dot)ibm(dot)com>
> To: "Pgsql Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> Date: 06/09/2017 01:41 PM
> Subject: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PATCH] split ProcArrayLock into multiple
parts
> Sent by: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
>
> I left out the retry in LWLockAcquire.
>
> [attachment "ProcArrayLock_part.patch" deleted by Jim Van Fleet/
> Austin/Contr/IBM]
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers