We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Judging by not using atomic vars/ops for increment we would similar to pgss need spin locks on all entries.
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/contrib/pg_stat_statements/pg_stat_statements.c#L1386
Essentially they seem to do it more sane:
shared LWLock if one starts dealing with hashmap and entry exclusve LWLock for adding entry to hash map only spinlock on modify entry
Although this needs testing given the impact seen in pgbench
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
Judging by not using atomic vars/ops for increment we would similar to pgss need spin locks on all entries.
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/contrib/pg_stat_statements/pg_stat_statements.c#L1386
Essentially they seem to do it more sane:
shared LWLock if one starts dealing with hashmap and entry
exclusve LWLock for adding entry to hash map only
spinlock on modify entry
Although this needs testing given the impact seen in pgbench
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: