|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Make HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC more concurrent|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 25 August 2015 at 21:51, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I don't mean to dismiss the potential for further optimization inside
>> XidInMVCCSnapshot (for instance, the one-XID-cache idea sounds promising);
>> but I think that's material for further research and a separate patch.
> Patch attached. Doesn't seem worth a separate thread.
This doesn't seem right to me: it only caches the case where the XID is
found to be present in the snapshot, whereas I think probably we should
remember the result in both cases (present or not).
Moreover, in the subxip-overflowed case where we replace an
originally-inquired-of subxact xid with its parent, what you're caching is
the parent xid, which will fail to match subsequent queries. Shouldn't we
cache the originally inquired-of xid?
The question of whether to cache "false" results perhaps requires some
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Andres Freund||2015-08-26 22:30:48||Re: Custom Scans and private data|
|Previous Message||Peter Geoghegan||2015-08-26 22:27:39||Re: 9.5 release notes|