On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:34:27AM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-06-23 21:08:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > 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. > > Oh. That's what it was combined with. I don't think it makes sense to > throw these three items together into one note. Their benefit/risk > potential is pretty different.
I believe Andres has made all these adjustments suggested. If not, please let me know. > > 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. > > Yea. And if then Bruce goes and compares feature counts... :) :-) -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
