On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 at 15:50, Yura Sokolov wrote:
> 23.01.2025 08:41, wenhui qiu wrote:
>> HI Japin
>> Thank you for you test ,It seems NUM_XLOGINSERT_LOCKS 64
>> is great , I think it doesn't need to grow much,What do you think?
>
> I agree: while 128 shows small benefit, it is not as big a
> 32 1834
> 64 1865
> 128 1543
>
>
>>>
>>> The main reason is that the increase in insert locks puts a lot
> more pressure
>>> on the spinlock.
; NUM_XLOGINSERT_LOCKS TPS
> > 1 2583
> > 2 2524
> > 4 2711
> > 8 2788
> > 16 1938
> > 32 1834
> > 64
way of the dodo),
> so the results aren't expected to be exactly the same.
>
> NUM_XLOGINSERT_LOCKS TPS
> 1 2583
> 2 2524
> 4 2711
> 8 2788
> 16 1938
> 32
1865
128 1543
>>
>> The main reason is that the increase in insert locks puts a lot more
pressure
>> on the spinlock.
>
> That it addressed by Zhiguo Zhow and me in other thread [1]. But
increasing
> NUM_XLOGINSERT_LOCKS gives bene
Excuse me, Andres, I've found I've pressed wrong button when I sent this
letter first time, and it was sent only to you. So I'm sending the copy now.
Please, reply to this message with copy of your answer. Your answer is
really valuable to be published in the list.
16.01.2025 18:36, Andres Fr
Hi,
On 2025-01-16 16:52:46 +0300, Yura Sokolov wrote:
> Good day, hackers.
>
> Zhiguo Zhow proposed to transform xlog reservation to lock-free algorighm to
> increment NUM_XLOGINSERT_LOCKS on very huge (480vCPU) servers. [1]
>
> While I believe lock-free reservation make sense on huge server, it
01
From: Yura Sokolov
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 15:06:59 +0300
Subject: [PATCH v0 1/2] Increase NUM_XLOGINSERT_LOCKS to 64
---
src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c | 8 ++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c b/src/backend/access/transam/xlo
