From: | Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga(at)uptime(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_stat_lwlocks view - lwlocks statistics |
Date: | 2012-06-26 03:10:11 |
Message-ID: | 4FE92813.5030308@uptime.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012/06/26 7:04, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Josh Berkus<josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 6/25/12 1:29 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
>>> (1) Performance
>>>
>>> I've measured LWLock performance both with and without the
>>> patch, and confirmed that this patch does not affect the LWLock
>>> perfomance at all.
>>
>> This would be my main concern with this patch; it's hard for me to
>> imagine that it has no performance impact *at all*, since
>> trace_lwlocks has quite a noticable one in my experience.
>> However, the answer to that is to submit the patch and let people
>> test.
>
> I think overhead is going to depend quite a bit on the
> gettimeofday() implementation, since that is called twice per lock
> wait.
Yes.
It's one of my concerns, and what I actually want hackers to test.
> It looked to me like there was nothing to prevent concurrent updates
> of the counts while gathering the accumulated values for display.
> Won't this be a problem on 32-bit builds?
Actually, I'd like to know how I can improve my code in a 32bit box.
However, unfortunately I don't have any 32bit (physical) box now,
so I want someone to test it if it needs to be tested.
> Please add this to the Open COmmitFest for a proper review:
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open
Will submit soon. Thanks.
>
> -Kevin
>
Regards,
--
Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga(at)uptime(dot)jp>
Uptime Technologies, LLC. http://www.uptime.jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2012-06-26 03:14:50 | Re: WAL format changes |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-06-26 03:05:52 | Re: patch: avoid heavyweight locking on hash metapage |