On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 13:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> > Yeah, I think you're right here. It's probably not much of a practical
>> > concern.
>> >
>> > I was slightly bothered because it seem
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 13:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > Yeah, I think you're right here. It's probably not much of a practical
> > concern.
> >
> > I was slightly bothered because it seemed a little unpredictable. But it
> > seems very minor, an
On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Yeah, I think you're right here. It's probably not much of a practical
> concern.
>
> I was slightly bothered because it seemed a little unpredictable. But it
> seems very minor, and if we wanted to fix it later I think we could.
Yes, I agree. I
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 07:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I haven't been that worried about overflow of the fast path table. If
> you are locking more than 16 relations at once, you probably have at
> least 5 tables in the query, maybe more - it depends in how many
> indexes you have, of course. My
On Jul 11, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> * ... It's also possible that
> * we're acquiring a second or third lock type on a relation we have
> * already locked using the fast-path, but for now we don't worry about
> * that case either.
> */
>
> How common is that case? There are only 16
* ... It's also possible that
* we're acquiring a second or third lock type on a relation we have
* already locked using the fast-path, but for now we don't worry about
* that case either.
*/
How common is that case? There are only 16 entries in the fast path lock
table, so it seems like it w
* Jeff Davis:
> Does this happen to be based on some academic research? I don't
> necessarily expect it to be; just thought I'd ask.
Paul E. McKenney's thesis contains a few references. It's called
"asymmetrical reader-writer locking" there, and Ingo Molnar implemented
this as "brlock" in Linux
On Jul 10, 2011, at 4:15 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 10:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I didn't get a lot of comments on my the previous version of my patch
>> to accelerate table locks.
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-06/msg00953.php
>>
>> Here's a new
A few very minor things that I noticed:
1. You use pre-increment in "for" loops (e.g. FastPathGrantLock). The
rest of the code seems to use post-increment in "for" loops, so you
might as well stick to the convention in cases where the two have
identical meaning.
2. Typo in the README: "acquire th
On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 10:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I didn't get a lot of comments on my the previous version of my patch
> to accelerate table locks.
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-06/msg00953.php
>
> Here's a new version anyway. In this version, I have:
I am trying
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 19:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'm really hurting
>> for is some code review.
>
> I'm trying to get my head into this patch. I have a couple questions:
>
> Does this happen to be based on some academic research? I don't
On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 19:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm really hurting
> for is some code review.
I'm trying to get my head into this patch. I have a couple questions:
Does this happen to be based on some academic research? I don't
necessarily expect it to be; just thought I'd ask.
Here is m
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 27 June 2011 15:13, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I didn't get a lot of comments on my the previous version of my patch
>> to accelerate table locks.
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-06/msg00953.php
>>
>> Here's a new version
On 27 June 2011 15:13, Robert Haas wrote:
> I didn't get a lot of comments on my the previous version of my patch
> to accelerate table locks.
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-06/msg00953.php
>
> Here's a new version anyway. In this version, I have:
>
> 1. Made pg_locks show
14 matches
Mail list logo
