On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I don't see any problem here that urgently needs solving. If we ever
> see any reports of out-of-memory failures in the bgwriter, then it'll
> be time to worry about this, but I think it quite unlikely that we
> ever will. (Even if we do, a simpler answer
Qingqing Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you suggest it makes sense that we continue to work on the patch or let
> it be?
I don't see any problem here that urgently needs solving. If we ever
see any reports of out-of-memory failures in the bgwriter, then it'll
be time to worry about this, b
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> If you want the bgwriter to keep working in the face of an out-of-memory
> condition in the hashtable, I think you'd have to change the coding so
> that it takes requests one at a time from the queue.
>
Patched version will issue ERROR instead of PANIC at t
Qingqing Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yeah, only theoretically there is some marginal performance improvements.
> Maybe you suggest we keep the LWLock but use the circular array part?
They're separable issues anyway.
> Yeah, not related to lock. But I changed algorithm to circular array as
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > (1) The spinlock itself are light weight than the LWLock here and we
> > can reduce the lock contention a little bit in AbsorbFsyncRequests();
>
> Spinlock-based coding is inherently much more fragile than LWLock-based
> coding. I'm against changing thin
Qingqing Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why is this a good idea?
> "In spirit of incremental improvement":
> (1) The spinlock itself are light weight than the LWLock here and we can
> reduce the lock contention a little bit in AbsorbFsyncRequests();
Spin
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Why is this a good idea?
>
"In spirit of incremental improvement":
(1) The spinlock itself are light weight than the LWLock here and we can
reduce the lock contention a little bit in AbsorbFsyncRequests();
(2) Don't need the CRITICAL SECTION in AbsorbFsync
Qingqing Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The following patch changes BgWriterCommLock to a spinlock.
Why is this a good idea?
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
