Re: Reducing ClogControlLock contention - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Reducing ClogControlLock contention
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1JjRKsBkjkPWQkNFV+Eej==aSQRYerpWytRyy_s9OxQYA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Reducing ClogControlLock contention  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On 30 June 2015 at 08:13, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Could it be possible to see some performance numbers? For example with a simple pgbench script doing a bunch of tiny transactions, with many concurrent sessions (perhaps hundreds).
>
>
> I'm more interested to see if people think it is safe.
>
> This contention is masked by contention elsewhere, e.g. ProcArrayLock, so the need for testing here should come once other patches ahead of this are in.
>

Exactly and other lock that can mask this improvement is WALWriteLock,
but for that we can take the performance data with synchronous_commit
off mode.



With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: dinesh kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.