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

Re: Process local hint bit cache

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Process local hint bit cache
Date: 2011-03-30 22:30:34
Message-ID: AANLkTi=4m0To4uA3eaqfTbQ+ydk9vDksy9-UPVVJ0f=U@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> btw I haven't forgotten your idea to move TransactionIdInProgress
> Down. I think this is a good idea, and will experiment with it pre and
> post cache.

aside:
Moving TransactionIdInProgress below TransactionIdDidCommit can help
in once sense: TransactionIdDidCommit grabs the XidStatus but discards
the knowledge if the transaction is known aborted.   If it is in fact
aborted you can immediately set the hint bits and punt. This should
save an awful lot of calls to TransactionIdInProgress when scanning
unhinted dead tuples.

otoh, checking commit status first can burn you if you are repeatedly
tuples that are in transaction, especially your own.  Probably this
could be mitigated by splitting TransactionIdIsInProgress so that you
can do just the local checks and not shared memory, so that you could:
1. is this transaction mine? (if so, we are done)
2. get xid status if commit/abort done
3. do ProcArray portions of TransactionIdIsInProgress

merlin

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-03-30 23:12:46
Subject: Re: Problem with pg_upgrade?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2011-03-30 21:44:13
Subject: Re: Problem with pg_upgrade?

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