Neil,
> It's worth noting that I did a lot of work toward that goal (making the
> BufMgrLock more granular) earlier in 2004, but unfortunately wasn't able
> to get it finished before leaving for the summer. I can't guarantee that
> the approach I took was the right one, but if anyone's interested
Josh Berkus wrote:
I'll have to admit to having only a beginner's grasp of this stuff, but I do
believe that that was what the OSDL patch did. Jan also tried a simpler
patch, which didn't work either.Both Jan and Tom have expressed the
opinion that the only solution is to make the BufrMgrL
Manfred,
> What did you test exactly and could you explain a bit about the context
> switch storm?
PostgreSQL currently causes a CS storm (context switches > 100,000) on
multi-processor machines where you have a number of concurrent processes ( >
than the number of processors) accessing the sam
Josh Berkus wrote:
Gaetano,
I knew there was an evaluation on the futex vs spinlock,
and Josh Berkus on IRC told me that there was only a 20%
performance increase, is this increase to throw away ?
Before we get totally off track here
I evaluated futexes strictly as an attempt to solve
Gaetano,
> I knew there was an evaluation on the futex vs spinlock,
> and Josh Berkus on IRC told me that there was only a 20%
> performance increase, is this increase to throw away ?
Before we get totally off track here
I evaluated futexes strictly as an attempt to solve the context switch
Hi all,
I knew there was an evaluation on the futex vs spinlock,
and Josh Berkus on IRC told me that there was only a 20%
performance increase, is this increase to throw away ?
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze i
