On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 5:17 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Both Heikki and I objected to that patch. > > Please explain your objection, based upon the patch and my explanations.
Well, we objected to the locking. Having reread the patch a few times though, I think I'm starting to wrap my head around it so, I don't know, maybe it's OK. Have you tested grabbing the ProcArrayLock in exclusive mode instead of having a separate spinlock, to see how that performs? >> And apparently it doesn't >> fix the problem, either. So, -1 from me. > > There is an issue observed in Erik's later tests, but my interpretation > of the results so far is that the sorted array patch successfully > removes the initially reported loss of performance. Is it possible the remaining spikes are due to fights over the spinlock? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
