| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |
| Date: | 2014-10-02 17:07:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20141002170747.GD25554@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-10-02 20:04:58 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 10/02/2014 05:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>OK.
> >>
> >>Given that the results look good, do you plan to push this?
> >
> >By "this", you mean the increase in the number of buffer mapping
> >partitions to 128, and a corresponding increase in MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS?
>
> Hmm, do we actually ever need to hold all the buffer partition locks at the
> same time? At a quick search for NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS in the code, I
> couldn't find any place where we'd do that. I bumped up
> NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS to 128, but left MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS at 100, and did
> "make check". It passed.
Do a make check-world and it'll hopefully fail ;). Check
pg_buffercache_pages.c.
I'd actually quite like to have a pg_buffercache version that, at least
optionally, doesn't do this, but that's a separate thing.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2014-10-02 17:15:44 | Re: DDL Damage Assessment |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-10-02 17:04:58 | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |