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

Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Date: 2010-04-26 07:21:35
Message-ID: 1272266495.4161.2852.camel@ebony (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 19:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > [ v2 patch ]
> I've been studying this some more while making notes for improved
> comments, and I've about come to the conclusion that having readers
> move the tail pointer (at the end of KnownAssignedXidsGetAndSetXmin)
> is overly tricky and probably not a performance improvement anyway.
> The code is in fact wrong as it stands: it's off-by-one about setting
> the new tail value.  And there's potential for contention with multiple
> readers all wanting to move the tail pointer at once.  

OK, since contention was my concern, I want to avoid that.

> And most
> importantly, KnownAssignedXidsSearch can't move the tail pointer so
> we might expend many inefficient searches while never moving the tail
> pointer.

> I think we should get rid of that and just have the two functions that
> can mark entries invalid (which they must do with exclusive lock)
> advance the tail pointer when they invalidate the current tail element.


> Then we have the very simple rule that only the startup process ever
> changes this data structure.

 Simon Riggs 

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-04-26 07:32:59
Subject: Re: standbycheck was:(Re: [HACKERS] testing hot standby
Previous:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2010-04-26 06:52:51
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group