From: | Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Subject: | Re: Repeated PredicateLockRelation calls during seqscan |
Date: | 2011-06-22 21:29:50 |
Message-ID: | 20110622212950.GR83336@csail.mit.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:07:04PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Hmm, I wonder if we should move this logic to heapam.c. The optimization
> to acquire a relation lock straight away should apply to all heap scans,
> not only those coming from ExecSeqScan. The distinction is academic at
> the moment, because that's the only caller that uses a regular MVCC
> snapshot, but it seems like a modularity violation for nodeSeqscan.c to
> reach into the HeapScanDesc to set the flag and grab the whole-relation
> lock, while heapam.c contains the PredicateLockTuple and
> CheckForSerializableConflictOut() calls.
On modularity grounds, I think that's a good idea. The other
PredicateLock* calls live in the access methods: heapam, nbtree, and
indexam for the generic index support. heap_beginscan_internal seems
like a reasonable place, as long as we're OK with taking the lock even
if the scan is initialized but never called.
Note that this hadn't been a reasonable option until last week when we
added the check for non-MVCC snapshots, since there are lots of things
that use heap scans but SeqScan is the only (currently-existing) one we
want to lock.
I am rather uneasy about making changes here unless we can be
absolutely certain they're right...
Dan
--
Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-06-22 21:43:12 | Re: lazy vxid locks, v1 |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-06-22 20:51:54 | fixing PQsetvalue() |