Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful
Date
Msg-id 15009.1311708305@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> Signals are already in use for special cases (queue is full), and I
>> think going through the kernel to achieve much more will lower
>> performance significantly.

> If there are no invalidations, there would be no signals. How would
> zero signals decrease performance?

But if there *is* an invalidation (which is not a negligible case),
it'd get significantly slower.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful