On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2014-11-11 09:29:22 +0000, Thom Brown wrote: > > On 26 September 2014 12:40, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > But this gets at another point: the way we're benchmarking this right > > > > now, we're really conflating the effects of three different things: > > > > > > > > 1. Changing the locking regimen around the freelist and clocksweep. > > > > 2. Adding a bgreclaimer process. > > > > 3. Raising the number of buffer locking partitions. > > > > > > First of all thanks for committing part-1 of this changes and it > > > seems you are planing to commit part-3 based on results of tests > > > which Andres is planing to do and for remaining part (part-2), today > > > > > > > Were parts 2 and 3 committed in the end? > > 3 was committed. 2 wasn't because it's not yet clear whether how > beneficial it is generally. >
As shown upthread that this patch (as it stands today) is dependent on another patch (wait free LW_SHARED acquisition) which is still not committed and still some more work is needed to clearly show the gain by this patch, so I have marked it as "Returned with Feedback". With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com