Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobZKpSHPs6Yr8-zvpxYdoLEPuKi2HNZJPL+5wHuCSNLZQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts  ("Jim Van Fleet" <vanfleet@us.ibm.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts  ("Jim Van Fleet" <vanfleet@us.ibm.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Jim Van Fleet <vanfleet@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> The basic idea is clear from your description, but it will be better
>> if you share the patch as well.  It will not only help people to
>> review and provide you feedback but also allow them to test and see if
>> they can reproduce the numbers you have mentioned in the mail.
>
> OK -- would love the feedback and any suggestions on how to mitigate the low
> end problems.

Did you intend to attach a patch?

> Sokolov Yura has a patch which, to me, looks good for pgbench rw
> performance.  Does not do so well with hammerdb (about the same as base) on
> single socket and two socket.

Any idea why?  I think we will have to understand *why* certain things
help in some situations and not others, not just *that* they do, in
order to come up with a good solution to this problem.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transactionid (XID)?
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Fix a typo in snapmgr.c