On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
> 1. With the above, you want to reduce/remove the concurrency issue between
> the GetSnapshotData() [used at begining of sql command execution] and
> ProcArrayEndTransaction() [used at end transaction]. The concurrency issue
> is mainly ProcArrayLock which is taken by GetSnapshotData() in Shared mode
> and by ProcArrayEndTransaction() in X mode.
> There may be other instances for similar thing, but this the main thing
> which you want to resolve.
> 2. You want to resolve it by using ring buffer such that readers don't need
> to take any lock.
Yep. Actually, they're still going to need some spinlocks at least in
the first go round, to protect the pointers. I'm hoping those can
eventually be eliminated on machines with 8-byte atomic reads using
appropriate memory barrier primitives.
> 1. 2 Writers; Won't 2 different sessions who try to commit at same time will
> get the same write pointer.
> I assume it will be protected as even indicated in one of your replies
> as I understood?
Yes, commits have to be serialized. No way around that. The best
we'll ever be able to do is shorten the critical section.
> 2. 1 Reader, 1 Writter; It might be case that some body has written a new
> snapshot and advanced the stop pointer and at that point of time one reader
> came and read between start pointer and stop pointer. Now the reader will
> see as follows:
> snapshot, few XIDs, snapshot
> So will it handle this situation such that it will only read latest
In my prototype implementation that can't happen because the start and
stop pointers are protected by a single spinlock and are moved
simultaneously. But I think we can get rid on machines with 8-byte
atomic writes of that and just move the stop pointer first and then
the start pointer. If you get more than one snapshot in the middle
you just ignore the first part of the data you read and start with the
beginning of the last snapshot.
> 3. How will you detect overwrite.
If the write pointer is greater than the start pointer by more than
the ring size, you've wrapped.
> 4. Won't it effect if we don't update xmin everytime and just noting the
> committed XIDs. The reason I am asking is that it is used in tuple
> visibility check
> so with new idea in some cases instead of just returning from begining
> by checking xmin it has to go through the committed XID list.
> I understand that there may be less cases or the improvement by your
> idea can supesede this minimal effect. However some cases can be defeated.
The snapshot xmin has to be up to date. I'm not planning to break
that because it would be wrong.
RecentGlobalXmin doesn't need to be completely up to date, and in fact
recomputing it on every snapshot becomes prohibitively expensive with
this approach. I'm still struggling with the best way to handle that.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-09-08 14:25:14|
|Subject: Re: Large C files |
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2011-09-08 13:47:35|
|Subject: Re: postgresql.conf archive_command example|