On 2016-02-01 13:06:57 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Alexander Korotkov < > a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > >> Client Base Patch > >> 1 19744 19382 > >> 8 125923 126395 > >> 32 313931 333351 > >> 64 387339 496830 > >> 128 306412 350610 > >> > >> Shared Buffer= 512MB > >> max_connections=150 > >> Scale Factor=300 > >> > >> ./pgbench -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres > >> > >> Client Base Patch > >> 1 17169 16454 > >> 8 108547 105559 > >> 32 241619 262818 > >> 64 206868 233606 > >> 128 137084 217013
So, there's a small regression on low client counts. That's worth addressing. > Attached patch is rebased and have better comments. > Also, there is one comment which survive since original version by Andres. > > /* Add exponential backoff? Should seldomly be contended tho. */ > > > Andres, did you mean we should twice the delay with each unsuccessful try > to lock? Spinning on a lock as fast as possible leads to rapid cacheline bouncing without anybody making progress. See s_lock() in s_lock.c. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
