On 2015-01-13 17:39:09 -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2015-01-13 15:17:15 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >> I'm inclined to think that this is a livelock, and so the problem > >> isn't evident from the structure of the B-Tree, but it can't hurt to > >> check. > > > > My guess is rather that it's contention on the freelist lock via > > StrategyGetBuffer's. I've seen profiles like this due to exactly that > > before - and it fits to parallel loading quite well. > > I think I've got it to pop again. s_lock is only showing 35% > (increasing very slowly if at all) but performance is mostly halted. > Frame pointer is compiled out. perf report attached.
> 35.82% postgres [.] s_lock > 23.71% postgres [.] tas > 14.01% postgres [.] tas > 6.82% postgres [.] spin_delay > 5.93% postgres [.] LWLockRelease > 4.36% postgres [.] LWLockAcquireCommon Interesting. This profile looks quite different? What kind of hardware is this on? 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
