Re: Postgres stucks in deadlock detection

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Юрий Соколов <funny(dot)falcon(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Postgres stucks in deadlock detection
Date: 2018-04-25 18:27:58
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaR-4A49+GTHWwiw6wBypg9NNZbggRdEF8y0Tycd_t+CQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik
<k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> With the extension lock patch performance in increased to 1146 TPS.
> So it is much better than with vanilla postgres and about 40% better than
> with deadlock patch (1146 vs. 719 TPS).

Cool, that's good to know.

> So definitely elimination heavy weight relation extension lock is good idea
> which eliminates the need for my deadlock patch ... but only in this insert
> test.
> As I have mentioned at the beginning of this thread the same problem with
> deadlock detection timeout expiration we have with YSCB benchmark with zipf
> distribution.
> Here the source of contention are tuple locks. And as far as I understand
> from the discussion in the mentioned thread, it is not possible to eliminate
> heavy weight tuple locks.

Right, that variant would have to be solved in some other way.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2018-04-25 18:30:50 Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-04-25 18:26:35 Re: unused_oids script is broken with bsd sed