Re: Reducing Transaction Start/End Contention - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Reducing Transaction Start/End Contention
Date
Msg-id 18080.1205423793@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Reducing Transaction Start/End Contention  (Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>)
Responses Re: Reducing Transaction Start/End Contention  (Paul van den Bogaard <Paul.Vandenbogaard@Sun.COM>)
Re: Reducing Transaction Start/End Contention  (Paul van den Bogaard <Paul.Vandenbogaard@Sun.COM>)
List pgsql-hackers
Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> How about this wording:
>> "Review Simon's claims to improve performance

> What sort of evidence is usually compelling? It seems to me that this 
> sort of change only benefits configurations with dozens or more CPUs/cores?

The main point in my mind was that that analysis was based on the code
as it then stood.  Florian's work to reduce ProcArrayLock contention
might have invalidated some or all of the ideas.  So it needs a fresh
look.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Nasty bug in heap_page_prune
Next
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Encoding problems with migration from 8.0.14 to 8.3.0 on Windows