On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > Today, while working on updating the patch to improve locking > I found that as now we are going to have a new process, we need > a separate latch in StrategyControl to wakeup that process. > Another point is I think it will be better to protect > StrategyControl->completePasses with victimbuf_lck rather than > freelist_lck, as when we are going to update it we will already be > holding the victimbuf_lck and it doesn't make much sense to release > the victimbuf_lck and reacquire freelist_lck to update it.
Sounds reasonable. I think the key thing at this point is to get a new version of the patch with the background reclaim running in a different process than the background writer. I don't see much point in fine-tuning the locking regimen until that's done. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
