> On 2017-09-21 15:51:54 -0500, Jim Van Fleet wrote:
> > Not to beat on a dead horse, or anything, but this fix was frowned
upon
> > because in one environment (one socket) it was 6% down and over 15% up
in
> > the right environment (two sockets).
>
> > So, why not add a configuration paramete
On 2017-09-21 15:51:54 -0500, Jim Van Fleet wrote:
> Not to beat on a dead horse, or anything, but this fix was frowned upon
> because in one environment (one socket) it was 6% down and over 15% up in
> the right environment (two sockets).
> So, why not add a configuration parameter which specif
1:39:35 PM:
> From: "Jim Van Fleet"
> To: "Pgsql Hackers"
> Date: 06/09/2017 01:41 PM
> Subject: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PATCH] split ProcArrayLock into multiple
parts
> Sent by: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
>
> I left out the retry in LWLockAcquire.
>
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Jim Van Fleet wrote:
> I left out the retry in LWLockAcquire.
If you want this to be considered, you should add it to the next
CommitFest, currently https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/
However, I can't see this being acceptable in the current form:
1. I'm prett
I left out the retry in LWLockAcquire.
ProcArrayLock_part.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
