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.

  Gregory Stark

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to