Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYPS8KPxzYJ4zNFb8V8+b=-1KKS3Pt5bsAVHVarGJ4SUA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> Now that we (EnterpriseDB) have this 8-socket machine, maybe we could
>> try your patch there, bound to varying numbers of sockets.
>
> It'd be a significant amount of work to rebase it ontop current HEAD. I
> guess the easiest thing would be to try an older version of the patch
> with the xadd in place, and use a tree from back then.

We could do that, I guess.  But we've made other significant
improvements in the meantime, so...

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: jsonb - path
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Further issues with jsonb semantics, documentation