Re: Reducing ClogControlLock contention

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Reducing ClogControlLock contention
Date: 2015-06-30 08:31:42
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JjRKsBkjkPWQkNFV+Eej==aSQRYerpWytRyy_s9OxQYA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 30 June 2015 at 08:13, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>>
>>
>> Could it be possible to see some performance numbers? For example with a
simple pgbench script doing a bunch of tiny transactions, with many
concurrent sessions (perhaps hundreds).
>
>
> I'm more interested to see if people think it is safe.
>
> This contention is masked by contention elsewhere, e.g. ProcArrayLock, so
the need for testing here should come once other patches ahead of this are
in.
>

Exactly and other lock that can mask this improvement is WALWriteLock,
but for that we can take the performance data with synchronous_commit
off mode.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2015-06-30 08:32:44 Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.
Previous Message dinesh kumar 2015-06-30 08:09:09 Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.