On Dec 16, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On that theory, I'm inclined to think that's not really a problem. >> We'll go nuts if we refuse to commit anything until it shows a >> meaningful win on every imaginable workload, and it seems like this >> can't really be worse than the status quo; any case where it is must >> be some kind of artifact. We're better of getting rid of as much >> ProcArrayLock contention as possible, rather than keeping it around >> because there are corner cases where it decreases contention on some >> other lock. > > Interesting conclusion, and it makes sense. Seems once this is applied > we will have more places to look for contention improvements.
I also wonder how much this throws some previous performance tests into suspicion. If it's not uncommon for performance improvement attempts to shift a bottleneck to a different part of the system and marginally hurt performance then we might be throwing away good performance improvement ideas before we should... -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect j...@nasby.net 512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
