On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
On Jan 20, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
So, you're proposing that we remove freelist altogether? Sounds reasonable,
but that needs to be performance tested somehow. I'm not sure what exactly
the test should
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
We should also look at having the freelist
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The real
problem there is that BufFreelistLock is also used to protect the
clock sweep pointer.
Agreed
I think basically we gotta find a way to allow
multiple backends to run clock sweeps concurrently. Or else fix
things
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
We should also look at having the freelist do something useful, instead of
just dropping it completely. Unfortunately
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
It's pretty trivial to prove that there is a very serious problem with
BufFreelistLock. I'll admit I can't prove what the right fix is just
yet, and certainly measurement is warranted.
I agree there is a problem with
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The expensive part of what
we do while holding BufFreelistLock is, I think, iterating through
buffers taking and releasing a spinlock on each one (!).
Yeah ... spinlocks that, by
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The expensive part of what
we do while holding BufFreelistLock is, I think, iterating through
buffers taking and
On Jan 20, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 04.01.2012 13:14, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Jim Nasbyj...@nasby.net writes:
On Jan 3, 2012, at 12:11 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
This could well be related to the fact that
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
We should also look at having the freelist do something useful, instead of
just dropping it completely. Unfortunately that's probably more work...
That's kinda my feeling as well. The free list in its current form is
pretty much
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
We should also look at having the freelist do something useful, instead of
just dropping it completely. Unfortunately that's probably more work...
That's kinda my feeling as well. The
On 04.01.2012 13:14, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Jim Nasbyj...@nasby.net writes:
On Jan 3, 2012, at 12:11 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
This could well be related to the fact that DropRelFileNodeBuffers()
does a scan of shared_buffers,
11 matches
Mail list logo
