On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> Well, this fell through the cracks, because I forgot to add it to the
>>> January CommitFest. Here it is again, rebased.
>>
>> This applies and builds cleanly and passes make check (under
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> Well, this fell through the cracks, because I forgot to add it to the
>> January CommitFest. Here it is again, rebased.
>
> This applies and builds cleanly and passes make check (under enable-cassert).
>
> Not test or docs are needed for a pat
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I've had cause, a few times this development cycle, to want to measure
>> the amount of spinning on each lwlock in the system. To that end,
>> I've found the attached patch useful. Note
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I've had cause, a few times this development cycle, to want to measure
>>> the amount of spinning on each lwlock in the system.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I've had cause, a few times this development cycle, to want to measure
>> the amount of spinning on each lwlock in the system. To that end,
>> I've found the attached patch useful. Note
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I've had cause, a few times this development cycle, to want to measure
> the amount of spinning on each lwlock in the system. To that end,
> I've found the attached patch useful. Note that if you don't define
> LWLOCK_STATS, this changes noth
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Please can you repeat the test, focusing on minutes 10-30 of a 30
> minute test run. That removes much of the noise induced during cache
> priming.
>
> My suggested size of database is one that is 80% size of RAM, with
> shared_buffers set to 4
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Just to whet your appetite, here are the top spinners on a 32-client
> SELECT-only test on a 32-core Itanium server. All the locks not shown
> below have two orders of magnitude less of a problem than these do.
Please can you repeat the test
On 12 January 2012 01:48, Robert Haas wrote:
> I've had cause, a few times this development cycle, to want to measure
> the amount of spinning on each lwlock in the system. To that end,
> I've found the attached patch useful. Note that if you don't define
> LWLOCK_STATS, this changes nothing exc
I've had cause, a few times this development cycle, to want to measure
the amount of spinning on each lwlock in the system. To that end,
I've found the attached patch useful. Note that if you don't define
LWLOCK_STATS, this changes nothing except that the return value from
s_lock becomes int rath
10 matches
Mail list logo
