| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: issue with gininsert under very high load |
| Date: | 2014-02-13 23:06:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20140213230634.GE4910@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-02-13 16:15:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> > Perhaps we should use a lock to enforce that only one process tries to
> > clean up the pending list at a time.
>
> Something like the attached? Can somebody who's seen this problem confirm
> this improves matters?
>
> (ginInsertCleanup's header comment also needs to be rewritten, but for
> testing purposes, this is fine.)
Hm. Won't that possiby lead to the fast tuple list growing unboundedly?
I think we would need to at least need to stop using the fast tuple
mechanism during gininsert() if it's already too big and do plain
inserts.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-13 23:14:17 | Another pgindent gripe |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-02-13 22:40:13 | Re: truncating pg_multixact/members |