| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone seen this kind of lock pileup? |
| Date: | 2010-11-17 23:42:14 |
| Message-ID: | 4CE46856.7070006@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>> What's odd about this is that the resulting "lock pileup" takes a
>> mysterious 2-3.5 seconds to clear, despite the fact that none of the
>> connections are *doing* anything during that time, nor are there
>> deadlock errors. In theory at least, the locks should clear out in
>> reverse order in less than a second; none of the individual statements
>> takes more than 10ms to execute.
Ok, I've collected more data. Looks like the case I was examining was
idiosyncratic; most of these lock pile-ups involve 400 or more locks
waiting held by around 20 different backends. Given this, taking 3
seconds to sort that all out doesn't seem that unreasonable.
Presumably there's a poll cycle of some sort for waiting statements?
Anyway, the obvious answer is for the user to fix their application.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-11-17 23:43:32 | Re: How to achieve sustained disk performance of 1.25 GB write for 5 mins |
| Previous Message | Ivan Voras | 2010-11-17 23:27:35 | Re: How to achieve sustained disk performance of 1.25 GB write for 5 mins |