Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZuNZ5j1U3=3TO=+d-yW6nNSbcYo6=g8oB7BwtOf30=bw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> That idea won't work as we need to separately register tranche for
> each process.  The other wayout could be to do it in CreateSharedProcArray()
> which will be quite similar to what we do for other tranches and
> it will cover all kind of processes.  Attached patch fixes this problem.
>
> I have considered to separately do it in InitProcessPhase2() and
> InitAuxiliaryProcess(), but then the registration will be done twice for
> some
> of the processes like bootstrap and same is true if we do this InitProcess()
> instead of InitProcessPhase2() and I think it won't be similar to what
> we do for other tranches.
>
> I have done the performance testing of the attached patch and the
> results are attached with this mail.  The main tests conducted are
> pgbench read-write and read-only tests and the results indicate that
> this patch doesn't introduce any regression, though you will see some
> cases where the performance is better with patch by ~5% and then
> regressed by 2~3%, but I think it is more of a noise, then anything
> else.

Committed.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches