On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Teodor Sigaev <teo...@sigaev.ru> wrote: >> Oh, that's an interesting idea. I guess the problem is that if the >> freelist is unshared, then users might get an error that the lock >> table is full when some other partition still has elements remaining. > > Could we split one freelist in hash to NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS freelists? > Each partition will have its own freelist and if freelist is empty then > partition should search an entry in freelists of other partitions. To > prevent concurrent access it's needed to add one LWLock to hash, each > partition should lock LWlock in share mode to work with its own freelist and > exclusive to work with other freelists. > > Actually, I'd like to improve all partitioned hashes instead of improve only > one case.
Yeah. I'm not sure that should be an LWLock rather than a spinlock, but we can benchmark it both ways. -- 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
