Re: Storing hot members of PGPROC out of the band - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Storing hot members of PGPROC out of the band
Date
Msg-id 201112170125.pBH1PpC07675@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Storing hot members of PGPROC out of the band  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Storing hot members of PGPROC out of the band
Re: Storing hot members of PGPROC out of the band
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas wrote:
> On that theory, I'm inclined to think that's not really a problem.
> We'll go nuts if we refuse to commit anything until it shows a
> meaningful win on every imaginable workload, and it seems like this
> can't really be worse than the status quo; any case where it is must
> be some kind of artifact.  We're better of getting rid of as much
> ProcArrayLock contention as possible, rather than keeping it around
> because there are corner cases where it decreases contention on some
> other lock.

Interesting conclusion, and it makes sense.  Seems once this is applied
we will have more places to look for contention improvements.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2