From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <vadim4o(at)email(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: beta5 ... |
Date: | 2001-02-17 04:56:24 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.33.0102170053180.81548-100000@mobile.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
> At 04:17 PM 2/16/01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >Vadim says (and I agree) that we really ought to implement a new
> >lightweight lock manager that would fall between spinlocks and regular
> >locks in terms of overhead and functionality. But it's not reasonable
>
> Will there be an arbitrary user locking feature? E.g. lock on arbitrary
> text string. That would be great :).
>
> BTW, is 7.1 going to be a bit slower than 7.0? Or just Beta 5? Just
> curious. Don't mind waiting for 7.2 for the speed-up if necessary.
It is possible that it will be ... the question is whether the slow down
is unbearable or not, as to whether we'll let it hold things up or not ...
From reading one of Tom's email's, it looks like the changes to 'fix' the
slowdown are drastic/large enough that it might not be safe (or desirable)
to fix it at this late of a stage in beta ...
Depending on what is involved, we might put out a v7.1 for March 1st, so
that ppl can feel confident about using the various features, but have a
v7.1.1 that follows relatively closely on its heels that addresses the
performance problem ...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2001-02-17 04:58:05 | Re: Performance lossage in checkpoint dumping |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-17 04:43:29 | Re: v7.1b4 bad performance |