On 2014-10-02 20:04:58 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 10/02/2014 05:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> > >wrote: > >>>OK. > >> > >>Given that the results look good, do you plan to push this? > > > >By "this", you mean the increase in the number of buffer mapping > >partitions to 128, and a corresponding increase in MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS? > > Hmm, do we actually ever need to hold all the buffer partition locks at the > same time? At a quick search for NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS in the code, I > couldn't find any place where we'd do that. I bumped up > NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS to 128, but left MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS at 100, and did > "make check". It passed.
Do a make check-world and it'll hopefully fail ;). Check pg_buffercache_pages.c. I'd actually quite like to have a pg_buffercache version that, at least optionally, doesn't do this, but that's a separate thing. 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
