Re: CLOG contention - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: CLOG contention
Date
Msg-id 26637.1324445394@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to CLOG contention  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: CLOG contention  (Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> So, what do we do about this?  The obvious answer is "increase
> NUM_CLOG_BUFFERS", and I'm not sure that's a bad idea.

As you say, that's likely to hurt people running in small shared
memory.  I too have thought about merging the SLRU areas into the main
shared buffer arena, and likewise have concluded that it is likely to
be way more painful than it's worth.  What I think might be an
appropriate compromise is something similar to what we did for
autotuning wal_buffers: use a fixed percentage of shared_buffers, with
some minimum and maximum limits to ensure sanity.  But picking the
appropriate percentage would take a bit of research.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: why do we need create tuplestore for each fetch?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: CLOG contention