| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Delay locking partitions during INSERT and UPDATE |
| Date: | 2019-02-19 17:09:46 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYLRjYisFgZBVCcWBB4dfT2i-Ubt3iPi8jiVb0OD8wUJw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:22 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2019-01-31 13:46:33 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I have reviewed this patch and I am in favor of it. I think it likely
> > needs minor rebasing because of the heap_open -> table_open renaming.
> > I also agree that it's worth taking some deadlock risk for the rather
> > massive performance gain, although I suspect it's likely that a few
> > users are going to complain about deadlocks and I wonder whether we'll
> > have to put some energy into that problem at some point. However, I
> > think what we probably want to do there is reduce the probability of
> > deadlocks through some trickery or maybe invent some new locking
> > mechanisms that work around the problem. The alternative of trying to
> > block this patch seems unpalatable.
>
> Are you saying that such workarounds would have to be merged at the same
> time as this patch? Or that we'd address such complaints that way at a
> later time?
Later.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-02-19 17:36:26 | Re: Delay locking partitions during INSERT and UPDATE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-19 17:07:51 | Re: speeding up planning with partitions |