| From: | Sailesh Krishnamurthy <sailesh(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Design notes for BufMgrLock rewrite |
| Date: | 2005-02-14 08:45:22 |
| Message-ID: | mjqhdkfil7h.fsf@drones.CS.Berkeley.EDU |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
Tom> and changing the buf_table hash table. The only common
Tom> operation that needs exclusive lock is reading in a page that
Tom> was not in shared buffers already, which will require at
Tom> least a kernel call and usually a wait for I/O, so it will be
Tom> slow anyway.
Why not a separate lock per bucket chain in the hash table in addition
to the system-wide LWLock ? It's not so much that such an operation will be
slow anyway but that such a slow operation will unnecessarily block
other operations.
--
Pip-pip
Sailesh
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-02-14 08:47:30 | Re: Dealing with network-dead clients |
| Previous Message | John Hansen | 2005-02-14 08:32:15 | Schema name of function |