Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From Jim Van Fleet
Subject Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts
Date
Msg-id OF441644EF.E58D56C9-ON86258136.00710DD9-86258136.00713C9A@notes.na.collabserv.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multipleparts  (Sokolov Yura <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view
NP, Sokolov --

pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org wrote on 06/05/2017 03:26:46 PM:

> From: Sokolov Yura <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>
> To: Jim Van Fleet <vanfleet@us.ibm.com>
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Date: 06/05/2017 03:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into
> multiple parts
> Sent by: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
>
> Excuse me, Jim.
>
> I was tired and misunderstand proposal: I thought of ProcArray
> sharding, but proposal is about ProcArrayLock sharding.
>
> BTW, I just posted improvement to LWLock:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/
> 2968c0be065baab8865c4c95de3f435c%40postgrespro.ru
>
> Would you mind to test against that and together with that?

I will give them a try ..

Jim

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Sokolov Yura
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multipleparts
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table