| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oleksii Kliukin <alexk(at)hintbits(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Prepared transaction releasing locks before deregistering its GID |
| Date: | 2019-02-25 05:30:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20190225053015.GC30864@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 02:28:23PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Done. I have spent some time today looking at the performance of the
> patch, designing a worst-case scenario to see how much bloat this adds
> in COMMIT PREPARED by running across many sessions 2PC transactions
> taking SHARE locks across many tables, as done in the script attached.
And of course I forgot the script, which is now attached.
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| twophase_bench.bash | text/plain | 1.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2019-02-25 05:42:12 | Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-25 05:28:23 | Re: Prepared transaction releasing locks before deregistering its GID |