On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> Today, while working on updating the patch to improve locking
> I found that as now we are going to have a new process, we need
> a separate latch in StrategyControl to wakeup that process.
> Another point is I think it will be better to protect
> StrategyControl->completePasses with victimbuf_lck rather than
> freelist_lck, as when we are going to update it we will already be
> holding the victimbuf_lck and it doesn't make much sense to release
> the victimbuf_lck and reacquire freelist_lck to update it.
Sounds reasonable. I think the key thing at this point is to get a
new version of the patch with the background reclaim running in a
different process than the background writer. I don't see much point
in fine-tuning the locking regimen until that's done.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
