On 2014-04-09 10:26:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > It's not unreasonable to argue that we just shouldn't optimize for > > several pins held by the same backend for the same and always touch the > > global count. > > NAK.
Note I didn't implement it because I wasn't too convinced either ;) > That would be a killer because of increased contention for buffer > headers. The code is full of places where a buffer's PrivateRefCount > jumps up and down a bit, for example when transferring a tuple into a > TupleTableSlot. On the other hand in those scenarios the backend is pretty likely to already have the cacheline locally in exclusive mode... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
