Re: Fw: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PATCH] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts -- follow-up

2017-09-21 Thread Jim Van Fleet
> On 2017-09-21 15:51:54 -0500, Jim Van Fleet wrote: > > Not to beat on a dead horse, or anything, but this fix was frowned upon > > because in one environment (one socket) it was 6% down and over 15% up in > > the right environment (two sockets). > > > So, why not add a configuration

Re: Fw: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PATCH] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts -- follow-up

2017-09-21 Thread Andres Freund
On 2017-09-21 15:51:54 -0500, Jim Van Fleet wrote: > Not to beat on a dead horse, or anything, but this fix was frowned upon > because in one environment (one socket) it was 6% down and over 15% up in > the right environment (two sockets). > So, why not add a configuration parameter which

Fw: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PATCH] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts -- follow-up

2017-09-21 Thread Jim Van Fleet
1:39:35 PM: > From: "Jim Van Fleet" <vanfl...@us.ibm.com> > To: "Pgsql Hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> > Date: 06/09/2017 01:41 PM > Subject: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PATCH] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts > Sent by: pgsql-hackers-ow...@

Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PATCH] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts

2017-07-26 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Jim Van Fleet wrote: > I left out the retry in LWLockAcquire. If you want this to be considered, you should add it to the next CommitFest, currently https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/ However, I can't see this being acceptable in the

[HACKERS] HACKERS[PATCH] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts

2017-06-09 Thread Jim Van Fleet
I left out the retry in LWLockAcquire. ProcArrayLock_part.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers