Re: Repeated PredicateLockRelation calls during seqscan

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/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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()