On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> Not having a freelist at all is probably a simpler way of avoiding the >> lock contention, so I'll happily back that suggestion instead. Patch >> attached, previous patch revoked. > > v2 attached with cleanup of some random stuff that crept onto patch.
Hi Simon, Based on the way this patch leaves the old code behind (using #ifdef), this looks more like a WIP patch which you want people to do performance testing with, rather than patch proposed for committing. If that is the case, could you outline the type of performance testing where you think it would make a difference (and whether it should be done on top of the main patch from this thread, the concurrent index drop one)? Also, it would be much easier to do the performance testing if this behavior was controlled by a temporarily added GUC, rather than an #ifdef. Do you think it is feasible to do that, or would the overhead of a single "if (some_guc)" per StrategyGetBuffer and StrategyFreeBuffer call distort things too much? Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
