Re: heavily contended lwlocks with long wait queues scale badly

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: heavily contended lwlocks with long wait queues scale badly
Date: 2024-01-18 06:17:26
Message-ID: ZajCdnAryeQSQ6Jj@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 03:11:48PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I'd like to apply that, just let me know if you have any comments
> and/or objections.

And done on 12~15.

While on it, I have also looked at source code references on github
and debian that involve lwWaiting, and all of them rely on lwWaiting
when not waiting, making LW_WS_NOT_WAITING an equivalent.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Arne Roland 2024-01-18 06:39:09 Re: A performance issue with Memoize
Previous Message Peter Smith 2024-01-18 05:44:51 Re: subscription disable_on_error not working after ALTER SUBSCRIPTION set bad conninfo