Re: Reducing contention for the LockMgrLock - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Reducing contention for the LockMgrLock
Date
Msg-id 5934.1134014027@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Reducing contention for the LockMgrLock  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Reducing contention for the LockMgrLock
List pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> My view would be that the LockMgrLock is not relevant for all workloads,
> but I want even more to be able to discuss whether it is, or is not, on
> an accepted basis before discussions begin.

Certainly.  I showed the evidence that it is currently a significant
problem for pgbench-like workloads, but pgbench is of course not
representative of everything.

My feeling about it is that different workloads are going to expose
different weak spots, and so as long as a given test case isn't
obviously artificial, whatever bottleneck it exposes is fair game
to work on.  pgbench seems reasonably representative of a class of
applications with relatively short transactions, so I don't doubt that
if pgbench has a problem with LockMgrLock contention, there are real-
world cases out there that do too.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Reducing contention for the LockMgrLock
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: HOOKS for Synchronous Replication?