From: David Rowley [mailto:david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com]
> I personally don't think that's true. The only way you'll notice the
> LockReleaseAll() overhead is to execute very fast queries with a
> bloated lock table. It's pretty hard to notice that a single 0.1ms
> query is slow. You'll need to execute thousands of them before you'll
> be able to measure it, and once you've done that, the lock shrink code
> will have run and the query will be performing optimally again.
Maybe so. Will the difference be noticeable between plan_cache_mode=auto (default) and plan_cache_mode=custom?
> I voice my concerns with v5 and I wasn't really willing to push it
> with a known performance regression of 7% in a fairly valid case. v6
> does not suffer from that.
You're right. We may have to consider the unpredictability to users by this hidden behavior as a compromise for higher
throughput.
> > Where else does the extra overhead come from?
>
> hash_get_num_entries(LockMethodLocalHash) == 0 &&
> + hash_get_max_bucket(LockMethodLocalHash) >
> + LOCKMETHODLOCALHASH_SHRINK_THRESHOLD)
>
> that's executed every time, not every 1000 times.
I see. Thanks.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
