| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 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 14:56:05 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobu7-tbvd3E-dfUUs-amXA8rzSQXs_gPX45z1BJ0JJsoA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2014-10-02 10:40:30 -0400, 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?
>
> Yes. Now that I think about it I wonder if we shouldn't define MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS like
> #define MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS (NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS + 64)
> or something like that?
Nah. That assumes NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS will always be the biggest
thing, and I don't see any reason to assume that, even if we're making
it true for now.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-10-02 15:03:28 | Re: "port/atomics/arch-*.h" are missing from installation |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-02 14:55:06 | Re: Inefficient barriers on solaris with sun cc |