From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Xact end leaves CurrentMemoryContext = TopMemoryContext |
Date: | 2024-06-18 20:23:36 |
Message-ID: | 20240618202336.5n447use7qe7krju@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2024-06-18 15:28:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> After awhile I had an epiphany: what we should do is make
> CommitTransactionCommand restore the memory context that was active
> before StartTransactionCommand. That's what we want in every place
> that was cognizant of this issue, and it seems to be the case in every
> place that wasn't doing anything explicit about it, either.
I like it.
I wonder if there's an argument the "persistent" TopTransactionContext should
live under a different name outside of transactions, to avoid references to it
working in a context where it's not valid? It's probably not worth it, but
not sure.
> The 0001 patch attached does that, and seems to work nicely.
> I made it implement the idea of recycling TopTransactionContext,
> too
Nice.
I think there might be some benefit to doing that for some more things,
later/separately. E.g. the allocation of TopTransactionResourceOwner shows up
in profiles for workloads with small transactions. Which got a bit worse with
17 (largely bought back in other places by the advantages of the new resowner
system).
> At this point I'd be inclined to wait for the branch to be made,
> and then apply 0001 in HEAD/v18 only and 0002 in v17 and before.
> While 0001 seems fairly straightforward, it's still a nontrivial
> change and I'm hesitant to shove it in at this late stage of the
> v17 cycle.
Seems reasonable.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2024-06-18 20:32:38 | Re: cost delay brainstorming |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-06-18 20:20:06 | Re: fix pg_upgrade comment |