| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 17:04:58 |
| Message-ID: | 542D85BA.7080303@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-10-02 17:07:47 | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |
| Previous Message | Harold Giménez | 2014-10-02 16:56:46 | Re: DDL Damage Assessment |