On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:34:27AM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-06-23 21:08:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> wrote:
> > > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > >>> <listitem>
> > >>> <para>
> > >>> Improve concurrent locking and buffer scan performance (Andres
> > >>> Freund, Kevin Grittner)
> > >>> </para>
> > >>> </listitem>
> > >>
> > >> If this is ab5194e6f, I don't think it makes sense to mention "buffer
> > >> scan" - it's just any lwlock, and buffer locks aren't the primary
> > >> benefit (ProcArrayLock, buffer mapping lock probably are that). I also
> > >
> > >> don't think Kevin was involved?
> > >
> > > It seems likely that 2ed5b87f9 was combined with something else in
> > > this reference. By reducing buffer pins and buffer content locking
> > > during btree index scans it shows a slight performance gain in
> > > btree scans and avoids some blocking of btree index vacuuming.
>
> Oh. That's what it was combined with. I don't think it makes sense to
> throw these three items together into one note. Their benefit/risk
> potential is pretty different.
I believe Andres has made all these adjustments suggested. If not,
please let me know.
> > I think maybe we should separate that back out. The list needs to be
> > user-accessible, but if it's hard to understand what it's referring
> > to, that's not good either.
>
> Yea. And if then Bruce goes and compares feature counts... :)
:-)
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
