From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
Date: | 2010-04-17 19:45:47 |
Message-ID: | 5747.1271533547@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 11:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It'd be cheaper anyway to sort and search the
>> array using plain <, so why are you so eager to use
>> TransactionIdFollows?
> The array grows to the right and is laid out one xid per element,
> resulting in a sequence of values that are transactionid-monotonic.
How do you know that just adding items at the right will produce a
sorted array? It seems quite unlikely to me that transactions can be
guaranteed to arrive at this code in XID order. I think you need to do
an explicitly sorted insertion.
> ... Doing it this way means that we can
> add rows past the head of the array and then move the head atomically,
> so that we can make adding xids lock-free.
... and even without that issue, this seems like utter fantasy. How
are you going to do that "atomically"? Have you considered what will
happen on weak-memory-ordering machines like PPC, in particular?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-04-17 20:14:33 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-04-17 19:20:00 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |