Re: [HACKERS] semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer

2003-09-20 Thread Tom Lane
Manfred Spraul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > MAX_ALIGNOF affects the on-disk format, correct? Right, it could affect placement of fields on-disk. I was thinking we could change it as an easy test, but maybe not ... If you set up the shared buffers at an appropriate offset, that should get most o

Re: [HACKERS] semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer

2003-09-20 Thread Manfred Spraul
Tom Lane wrote: Manfred Spraul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... Initially I tried to increase MAX_ALIGNOF to 16, but the result didn't work: You would need to do a full recompile and initdb to alter MAX_ALIGNOF. I think I did that, but it still failed. 7.4cvs works, I'll ignore it. MAX_AL

Re: [HACKERS] semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer

2003-09-20 Thread Tom Lane
Manfred Spraul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... Initially I tried to increase MAX_ALIGNOF to 16, but > the result didn't work: You would need to do a full recompile and initdb to alter MAX_ALIGNOF. However, if you are wanting to raise it past about 8, that's probably not the way to go anyway; it

Re: [HACKERS] semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer

2003-09-20 Thread Manfred Spraul
Tom Lane wrote: Oh, pgbench ;-). Are you aware that you need a "scale factor" (-s) larger than the number of clients to avoid unreasonable levels of contention in pgbench? No. What about adding a few reasonable examples to README? I've switched to "pgbench -c 10 -s 11 -t 1000 test". Is that ok?

Re: [HACKERS] semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer

2003-09-20 Thread Tom Lane
Manfred Spraul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I'd be more interested in asking why you're seeing long series >> of semops in the first place. > I couldn't figure out what exactly causes the long series of semops. I > tried to track it down (enable LOCK_DEBUG): > - postgres 7.3.3

Re: [HACKERS] semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer

2003-09-20 Thread Manfred Spraul
Tom Lane wrote: AFAIK, semops are not done unless we actually have to yield the processor, so saving a syscall or two in that path doesn't sound like a big win. I'd be more interested in asking why you're seeing long series of semops in the first place. Virtually all semops yield the processor

Re: [HACKERS] semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer

2003-09-19 Thread Tom Lane
Manfred Spraul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've noticed that postgres strace output contains long groups of > setitimer/semop/setitimer. > Just FYI: semtimedop is a special syscalls that implements a semop with > a timeout. It was added just for the purpose of avoiding the setitimer > calls. >

[HACKERS] semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer

2003-09-19 Thread Manfred Spraul
I've noticed that postgres strace output contains long groups of setitimer/semop/setitimer. Just FYI: semtimedop is a special syscalls that implements a semop with a timeout. It was added just for the purpose of avoiding the setitimer calls. I know that it's supported by Solaris and recent Linux