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

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: tender wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock
Date: 2024-01-08 11:25:20
Message-ID: ZZvboO2AmC4pL7J0@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

The more I look at TransactionGroupUpdateXidStatus, the more I think
it's broken, and while we do have some tests, I don't have confidence
that they cover all possible cases.

Or, at least, if this code is good, then it hasn't been sufficiently
explained.

If we have multiple processes trying to write bits to clog, and they are
using different banks, then the LWLockConditionalAcquire will be able to
acquire the bank lock

--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster
than society gathers wisdom." (Isaac Asimov)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2024-01-08 11:35:22 Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2024-01-08 11:23:14 Re: brininsert optimization opportunity