| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: measuring lwlock-related latency spikes |
| Date: | 2012-04-02 10:49:59 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HMx0uQtPxBxoLedgvwm3ARq5Non1e7ACt+9UWTFsQVREg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Not true, please refer to code at line 544, as I already indicated.
>
> My understanding of the instrumentation is that the lock acquired at
> line 526 will show as the blocker until we reach line 555, so anything
> in between could be responsible for the wait.
Hm, but then wouldn't the lock acquisition at line 544 be showing up as well?
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-04-02 11:01:50 | Re: measuring lwlock-related latency spikes |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2012-04-02 09:23:58 | Re: Switching to Homebrew as recommended Mac install? |