On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> Well, this fell through the cracks, because I forgot to add it to the
>>> January CommitFest. Here it is again, rebased.
>>
>> This applies and builds cleanly and passes make check (under
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> Well, this fell through the cracks, because I forgot to add it to the
>> January CommitFest. Here it is again, rebased.
>
> This applies and builds cleanly and passes make check (under enable-cassert).
>
> Not test or docs are needed for a pat
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I've had cause, a few times this development cycle, to want to measure
>> the amount of spinning on each lwlock in the system. To that end,
>> I've found the attached patch useful. Note
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I've had cause, a few times this development cycle, to want to measure
>>> the amount of spinning on each lwlock in the system.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I've had cause, a few times this development cycle, to want to measure
>> the amount of spinning on each lwlock in the system. To that end,
>> I've found the attached patch useful. Note
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I've had cause, a few times this development cycle, to want to measure
> the amount of spinning on each lwlock in the system. To that end,
> I've found the attached patch useful. Note that if you don't define
> LWLOCK_STATS, this changes noth
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Please can you repeat the test, focusing on minutes 10-30 of a 30
> minute test run. That removes much of the noise induced during cache
> priming.
>
> My suggested size of database is one that is 80% size of RAM, with
> shared_buffers set to 4
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Just to whet your appetite, here are the top spinners on a 32-client
> SELECT-only test on a 32-core Itanium server. All the locks not shown
> below have two orders of magnitude less of a problem than these do.
Please can you repeat the test
On 12 January 2012 01:48, Robert Haas wrote:
> I've had cause, a few times this development cycle, to want to measure
> the amount of spinning on each lwlock in the system. To that end,
> I've found the attached patch useful. Note that if you don't define
> LWLOCK_STATS, this changes nothing exc
