Gregory Stark wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > Patch applied. Thanks. > >> > >> Wait a minute. This patch changes the behavior so that > >> LockBufferForCleanup is applied to *every* heap page, not only the ones > >> where there are removable tuples. It's not hard to imagine scenarios > >> where that results in severe system-wide performance degradation. > >> Has there been any real-world testing of this idea? > > > > I see the no-index case now: > > > > + if (nindexes) > > + LockBuffer(buf, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE); > > + else > > + LockBufferForCleanup(buf); > > > > Let's see what Greg says, or revert. > > Hm, that's a good point. I could return it to the original method where it > released the share lock and did he LockBufferForCleanup only if necessary. I > thought it was awkward to acquire a lock then release it to acquire a > different lock on the same buffer but it's true that it doesn't always have to > acquire the second lock.
This rush to apply patches just because no one seems to be capable of keeping up with them not being reviewed, is starting to get a bit worrisome. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
