On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >>> <listitem> >>> <para> >>> Improve concurrent locking and buffer scan performance (Andres >>> Freund, Kevin Grittner) >>> </para> >>> </listitem> >> >> If this is ab5194e6f, I don't think it makes sense to mention "buffer >> scan" - it's just any lwlock, and buffer locks aren't the primary >> benefit (ProcArrayLock, buffer mapping lock probably are that). I also > >> don't think Kevin was involved? > > It seems likely that 2ed5b87f9 was combined with something else in > this reference. By reducing buffer pins and buffer content locking > during btree index scans it shows a slight performance gain in > btree scans and avoids some blocking of btree index vacuuming.
I think maybe we should separate that back out. The list needs to be user-accessible, but if it's hard to understand what it's referring to, that's not good either. -- 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
