On 2014-10-03 11:51:46 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > I am assuming almost no one cares about the number of locks, but rather > > they care about cummulative lock durations. > > > > I am having trouble seeing any other option that has such a good > > cost/benefit profile. > > I do think that the instrumentation data gathered by LWLOCK_STATS is > useful - very useful. > > But it does have significant overhead.
Have you ever analyzed where that overhead is with the current code? I do wonder if having a per backend array in shmem indexed by the lockid (inside its tranche) wouldn't be quite doable for the smaller tranches. 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
