Horton

Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>

View thread
From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-12-16T13:42:40Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 16.12.2011 15:03, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>  wrote:
>> On 16.12.2011 14:37, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>> I already proposed a design for that using page-level share locks any
>>> reason not to go with that?
>>
>> Sorry, I must've missed that. Got a link?
>
>  From nearly 4 years ago.
>
> http://grokbase.com/t/postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008/02/reworking-wal-locking/145qrhllcqeqlfzntvn7kjefijey

Ah, thanks. That is similar to what I'm experimenting, but a second 
lwlock is still fairly heavy-weight. I think with many backends, you 
will be beaten badly by contention on the spinlocks alone.

I'll polish up and post what I've been experimenting with, so we can 
discuss that.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com