> Dan Ports wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 04:18:37AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> These proofs show that there is no legitimate cycle which could
>> cause an anomaly which the move from row-based to tuple-based
>> logic will miss. They don't prove that the change will generate
>> all the same serialization failures; and in fact, some false
>> positives are eliminated by the change.
> Yes, that's correct. That's related to the part in the proof where
> I claimed T3 couldn't have a conflict out *to some transaction T0
> that precedes T1*.
> I originally tried to show that T3 couldn't have any conflicts out
> that T2 didn't have, which would mean we got the same set of
> serialization failures, but that's not true. In fact, it's not too
> hard to come up with an example where there would be a
> serialization failure with the row version links, but not without.
> However, because the rw-conflict can't be pointing to a transaction
> that precedes T1 in the serial order, it won't create a cycle. In
> other words, there are serialization failures that won't happen
> anymore, but they were false positives.
Dan and I went around a couple times chasing down all code, comment,
and patch changes needed, resulting in the attached patch. We found
and fixed the bug which originally manifested in a way which I
confused with a need for row locks, as well as another which was
nearby in the code. We backed out the changes which were causing
merge problems for Robert, as those were part of the attempt at the
row locking (versus tuple locking). We removed a function which is
no longer needed. We adjusted the comments and an affected isolation
As might be expected from removing an unnecessary feature, the lines
of code went down -- a net decrease of 93 lines.
This patch applies against HEAD, `make check-world` passes as does
`make -C src/test/isolation installcheck` and `make
installcheck-world` against a database with
default_transaction_isolation = 'serializable'. Dan is running
stress testing against the patched version tonight with DBT-2.
These changes generate merge conflicts with the work I've done on
handling CLUSTER, DROP INDEX, etc. It seems to me that the best
course would be to commit this, then I can rebase the other work and
post it. Since these issues are orthogonal, it didn't seem like a
good idea to combine them in one patch, and this one seems more
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Pavan Deolasee||Date: 2011-05-26 03:51:47|
|Subject: Re: Proposal: Another attempt at vacuum improvements|
|Previous:||From: Craig Ringer||Date: 2011-05-26 02:40:22|
|Subject: Re: Hash Anti Join performance degradation|