On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Not true, please refer to code at line 544, as I already indicated. >> >> My understanding of the instrumentation is that the lock acquired at >> line 526 will show as the blocker until we reach line 555, so anything >> in between could be responsible for the wait. > > Hm, but then wouldn't the lock acquisition at line 544 be showing up as well?
Some time ago on this thread, I wrote: "Anyway, just to note that it might not be I/O and we need to find out." Do you consider this proof that it can only be I/O? Or do we still need to find out? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
