| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Staale Smedseng <Staale(dot)Smedseng(at)Sun(dot)COM>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why are we waiting? |
| Date: | 2008-02-06 19:42:18 |
| Message-ID: | 15807.1202326938@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> There were only 2 lock delays for FirstLockMgrLock in SHARED mode, so it
> seems believable that there were 0 lock delays in EXCLUSIVE mode.
Not really, considering the extremely limited use of LW_SHARED in lock.c
(GetLockConflicts is used only by CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, and
GetLockStatusData only by the pg_locks view). For the type of benchmark
that I gather this is, there should be *zero* LW_SHARED acquisitions at
all. And even if there are some, they could only be blocking against
the (undoubtedly much more frequent) LW_EXCLUSIVE acquisitions; it's not
very credible that there is zero contention among the LW_EXCLUSIVE locks
yet a few shared acquirers manage to get burnt.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-02-06 19:49:34 | Re: Why are we waiting? |
| Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-02-06 19:36:18 | Re: Page-at-a-time Locking Considerations |