On 2014-04-24 23:28:14 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-04-24 12:43:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> > > On 2014-04-24 11:02:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> FWIW, I like the LWLockAssignBatch idea a lot better than the currently
> > >> proposed patch. LWLockAssign is a
On 2014-04-24 12:43:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2014-04-24 11:02:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> FWIW, I like the LWLockAssignBatch idea a lot better than the currently
> >> proposed patch. LWLockAssign is a low-level function that has no business
> >> making risky ass
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2014-04-24 11:02:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> FWIW, I like the LWLockAssignBatch idea a lot better than the currently
>> proposed patch. LWLockAssign is a low-level function that has no business
>> making risky assumptions about the context it's invoked in.
> I don't t
On 04/24/2014 07:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-04-24 11:02:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund writes:
On 2014-04-24 15:56:45 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Another idea is to add an LWLockAssignBatch(int) function that assigns a
range of locks in one call. That would be very simp
On 2014-04-24 11:02:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2014-04-24 15:56:45 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Another idea is to add an LWLockAssignBatch(int) function that assigns a
> >> range of locks in one call. That would be very simple, and I think it would
> >> be l
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2014-04-24 15:56:45 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Another idea is to add an LWLockAssignBatch(int) function that assigns a
>> range of locks in one call. That would be very simple, and I think it would
>> be less likely to break things than a new global flag. I wou
On 2014-04-24 15:56:45 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/17/2014 12:06 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >On 2014-04-16 19:33:52 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:58:49AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>>On 2014-02-03 11:22:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund wri
On 04/17/2014 12:06 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-04-16 19:33:52 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:58:49AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-02-03 11:22:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund writes:
On larger, multi-socket, machines, startup takes a fair bit of ti
On 2014-04-16 19:33:52 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:58:49AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2014-02-03 11:22:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Andres Freund writes:
> > > > On larger, multi-socket, machines, startup takes a fair bit of time. As
> > > > I was profiling
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:58:49AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-02-03 11:22:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> > > On larger, multi-socket, machines, startup takes a fair bit of time. As
> > > I was profiling anyway I looked into it and noticed that just about all
> > >
On 2014-02-03 11:22:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On larger, multi-socket, machines, startup takes a fair bit of time. As
> > I was profiling anyway I looked into it and noticed that just about all
> > of it is spent in LWLockAssign() called by InitBufferPool(). Starting
>
On 2014-02-03 11:22:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On larger, multi-socket, machines, startup takes a fair bit of time. As
> > I was profiling anyway I looked into it and noticed that just about all
> > of it is spent in LWLockAssign() called by InitBufferPool(). Starting
>
Andres Freund writes:
> On larger, multi-socket, machines, startup takes a fair bit of time. As
> I was profiling anyway I looked into it and noticed that just about all
> of it is spent in LWLockAssign() called by InitBufferPool(). Starting
> with shared_buffers=48GB on the server Nate Boley prov
Hi,
On larger, multi-socket, machines, startup takes a fair bit of time. As
I was profiling anyway I looked into it and noticed that just about all
of it is spent in LWLockAssign() called by InitBufferPool(). Starting
with shared_buffers=48GB on the server Nate Boley provided, takes about
12 secon
14 matches
Mail list logo
