| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful |
| Date: | 2011-07-27 16:34:35 |
| Message-ID: | 10727.1311784475@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 1. Add a new flag to each procState called something like "timeToPayAttention".
>> 2. Each call to SIGetDataEntries() iterates over all the ProcStates
>> whose index is < lastBackend and sets stateP->timeToPayAttention =
>> TRUE for each.
>> 3. At the beginning of SIGetDataEntries(), we do an unlocked if
>> (!stateP->timeToPayAttention) return 0.
>> 4. Immediately following that if statement and before acquiring any
>> locks, we set stateP->timeToPayAttention = FALSE.
> There turned out to be a little bit of further subtlety to this, but
> it seems to work. Patch attached.
And?
It didn't sound to me like this could possibly be a performance win,
but I await some numbers ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-07-27 16:39:11 | Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-27 16:12:15 | Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful |