On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 09/06/2016 04:49 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Tomas Vondra >> <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 09/05/2016 06:03 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>>> So, in short we have to compare three >>>> approaches here. >>>> >>>> 1) Group mode to reduce CLOGControlLock contention >>>> 2) Use granular locking model >>>> 3) Use atomic operations >>>> >>>> For approach-1, you can use patch [1]. For approach-2, you can use >>>> 0001-Improve-64bit-atomics-support patch[2] and the patch attached >>>> with this mail. For approach-3, you can use >>>> 0001-Improve-64bit-atomics-support patch[2] and the patch attached >>>> with this mail by commenting USE_CONTENT_LOCK. If the third doesn't >>>> work for you then for now we can compare approach-1 and approach-2. >>>> >>> >>> OK, I can compile all three cases - but onl with gcc 4.7 or newer. Sadly >>> the 4-socket 64-core machine runs Debian Jessie with just gcc 4.6 and my >>> attempts to update to a newer version were unsuccessful so far. >>> >> >> So which all patches your are able to compile on 4-socket m/c? I >> think it is better to measure the performance on bigger machine. > > Oh, sorry - I forgot to mention that only the last test (with > USE_CONTENT_LOCK commented out) fails to compile, because the functions > for atomics were added in gcc-4.7. >
No issues, in that case we can leave the last test for now and do it later. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
