| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, ik(at)postgresql-consulting(dot)com, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynamic LWLock tracing via pg_stat_lwlock (proof of concept) |
| Date: | 2014-10-07 19:42:37 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaDqSvbUB6pOVNUZjqG32W72TAO8nJzzsZ=dMG2Un8q2Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2014-10-07 10:45:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > It's not like it'd be significantly different today - in a read mostly
>> > workload that's bottlenecked on ProcArrayLock you'll not see many
>> > waits. There you'd have to count the total number of spinlocks cycles to
>> > measure anything interesting.
>>
>> Hmm, really? I've never had to do that to find bottlenecks.
>
> How did you diagnose procarray contention in a readonly workload
> otherwise, without using perf?
spindelays.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-10-07 20:06:25 | Re: lwlock contention with SSI |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-07 19:10:04 | Re: lwlock contention with SSI |