On 06.03.2012 17:12, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
On 06.03.2012 14:52, Fujii Masao wrote:
This also strikes me that the usage of the spinlock insertpos_lck might
not be OK in ReserveXLogInsertLocation() because a few dozen instructions
can be performed while holding the spinlock....
I admit that block is longer than any of our existing spinlock blocks.
However, it's important for performance. I tried using a lwlock earlier,
and that negated the gains. So if that's a serious objection, then let's
resolve that now before I spend any more time on other aspects of the
patch. Any ideas how to make that block shorter?
How long is the current locked code exactly --- does it contain a loop?
Perhaps best if you take a look for yourself, the function is called
ReserveXLogInsertLocation() in patch. It calls a helper function called
AdvanceXLogRecPtrToNextPage(ptr), which is small and could be inlined.
It does contain one loop, which iterates once for every WAL page the
record crosses.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
