Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmobu7-tbvd3E-dfUUs-amXA8rzSQXs_gPX45z1BJ0JJsoA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2014-10-02 10:40:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> >> OK.
>> >
>> > Given that the results look good, do you plan to push this?
>>
>> By "this", you mean the increase in the number of buffer mapping
>> partitions to 128, and a corresponding increase in MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS?
>
> Yes. Now that I think about it I wonder if we shouldn't define MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS like
> #define MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS       (NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS + 64)
> or something like that?

Nah.  That assumes NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS will always be the biggest
thing, and I don't see any reason to assume that, even if we're making
it true for now.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Inefficient barriers on solaris with sun cc
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: "port/atomics/arch-*.h" are missing from installation