Re: Hot standby, conflict resolution

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hot standby, conflict resolution
Date: 2009-01-26 17:14:35
Message-ID: 497DEF7B.6050904@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:
> Rather than signalling, we could use a hasconflict boolean for each proc
> in a shared data structure. It can be read without spinlock, but should
> only be written while holding spinlock.
>
> Each time we read a block we check if hasconflict is set. If it is, we
> grab spinlock, recheck if it is set, if so read the conflict details,
> clear the flag and drop the spinlock.

Yeah, that seems workable.

> The aim of this type of conflict resolution was to reduce the footprint
> of users that would be effected and defer it as much as possible. We've
> spent time getting the latestCompletedXid, but we know deriving that
> value is very difficult in the btree case at least. So what I would like
> to do is pass the relid of a conflict across as well and use that to
> reduce the footprint, now that we are performing the test inside the
> buffer manager.

I agree that would be useful, but I'd prefer to keep it simple for now...

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message KaiGai Kohei 2009-01-26 17:20:46 Re: 8.4 release planning
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2009-01-26 16:55:51 Re: 8.4 release planning