On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>> The expensive part of what
>>>> we do while holding BufFreelistLock is, I think, iterating through
>>>> buffers taking and releasing a spinlock on each one (!).
>
>>> Yeah ... spinlocks that, by definition, will be uncontested.
>
>> What makes you think that they are uncontested?
>
> Ah, never mind. I was thinking that we'd only be touching buffers that
> were *on* the freelist, but of course this is incorrect. The real
> problem there is that BufFreelistLock is also used to protect the
> clock sweep pointer. I think basically we gotta find a way to allow
> multiple backends to run clock sweeps concurrently. Or else fix
> things so that the freelist never (well, hardly ever) runs dry.
I'd come to the same conclusion myself. :-)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
