On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 13:49 +0000, Matthew Wakeling wrote: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Jignesh K. Shah wrote: > > I thought about that.. Except without putting a restriction a huge queue will cause lot of time spent in manipulating the lock > > list every time. One more thing will be to maintain two list shared and exclusive and round robin through them for every time you > > access the list so manipulation is low.. But the best thing is to allow flexibility to change the algorithm since some workloads > > may work fine with one and others will NOT. The flexibility then allows to tinker for those already reaching the limits. > > Yeah, having two separate queues is the obvious way of doing this. It > would make most operations really trivial. Just wake everything in the > shared queue at once, and you can throw it away wholesale and allocate a > new queue. It avoids a whole lot of queue manipulation. Yes, that sounds good. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support - Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
