On 10/03/16 09:57, Dilip Kumar wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com <mailto:p...@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote: Thanks for the comments.. Hmm, why did you remove the comment above the call to UnlockRelationForExtension? While re factoring I lose this comment.. Fixed it It still seems relevant, maybe with some minor modification? Also there is a bit of whitespace mess inside the conditional lock block. Fixed I got the result of 10 mins run so posting it.. Note: Base code results are copied from up thread... Results For 10 Mins run of COPY 10000 records of size 4 bytes script and configuration are same as used in up thread -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Client Base Patch 1 105 111 2 217 246 4 210 428 8 166 653 16 145 808 32 124 988 64 --- 974 Results For 10 Mins run of INSERT 1000 records of size 1024 bytes(data don't fits in shared buffer) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Client Base Patch 1 117 120 2 111 126 4 51 130 8 43 147 16 40 209 32 --- 254 64 --- 205
Those look good. The patch looks good in general now. I am bit scared by the lockWaiters * 20 as it can result in relatively big changes in rare corner cases when for example a lot of backends were waiting for lock on relation and suddenly all try to extend it. I wonder if we should clamp it to something sane (although what's sane today might be small in couple of years).
-- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
