Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > Well, then what real options do we have? It seems the patch is just > > required for all branches. > > I think it would be possible to fix it in a less invasive way by taking > and releasing the ControlLock an extra time in SimpleLruReadPage and > SimpleLruWritePage. What's indeterminate about that is the performance > cost. In situations where there's not a lot of SLRU I/O traffic it's > presumably negligible, but in a case like Jim's where there's evidently > a *whole* lot of traffic, it might be a killer.
To me a performance problem is much harder get reports on and to locate than a real fix to the problem. I think if a few people eyeball the patch, it is OK for application. Are backpatches significantly different? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
