Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [WIP] shared locks

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>,Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [WIP] shared locks
Date: 2005-04-19 01:53:38
Message-ID: 200504190153.j3J1rc829706@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> > The idea is that a tuple's Xmax can either be a real TransactionId
> > (which is used normally like current CVS tip), or, if the infomask has
> > HEAP_XMAX_SHARED_LOCK, a MultiXactId.
> 
> Interesting idea.  Would it be possible to invoke this mechanism only
> when actually needed --- that is, the first locker of a given tuple
> puts his plain TransactionId into Xmax (and also sets an infomask bit
> indicating his intent to have a shared rather than exclusive lock),
> and then the second locker to come along replaces the TransactionId
> with a MultiTransactionId including himself and the first locker?
> 
> This requires 2 infomask bits: 1 for shared vs exclusive lock and one
> for whether the Xmax contains a TransactionId or MultiTransactionId.
> But we have them available, and I think I like keeping those concepts
> separate anyway.  (Who's to say we wouldn't want to allow a
> MultiTransactionId to hold an exclusive lock, someday?)
> 
> The advantage of course would be substantially less overhead in the very
> common case where there's no actual contention for the tuple.

Yes, that is certainly possible.  Alvaro felt he wanted something
simpler and that the two-bit case would add complexity, but I agree it
would reduce overhead in the most common case.

> > MultiXactIds are implemented using two SLRU areas and a couple of
> > variables in ShmemVariableCache.  We also XLog groups of them just like
> > we do for Oids.
> 
> So no need for expansible shmem storage?  Might be the way to go.
> I haven't read the patch yet but the idea sounds promising.

Right.  What he does is to use something like pg_subtrans to have a
rolling window of current multi-xid sets and the idea is that most
access will fall into a small window that is easily stored in the memory
window.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Philip YarraDate: 2005-04-19 02:16:07
Subject: Re: SETOF function call
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-04-19 01:53:28
Subject: Re: SETOF function call

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-04-19 03:14:03
Subject: Re: Getting rid of the global timezone
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-04-19 00:00:57
Subject: Re: [WIP] shared locks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group