From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Sergey Koposov <koposov(at)ast(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile |
Date: | 2012-05-24 21:24:12 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobkHX-jQqMpBMdK+SoZfgSLxwkqo+=9pOQhb1YnOzztXw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Wait -- OP's gripe this isn't regarding standard pgbench, but multiple
> large concurrent 'insert into foo select...'. I looked in the code
> and it appears that the only bulk insert strategy using operations are
> copy, create table as select, and table rewrite operations. Concurrent
> INSERT SELECT apparently doesn't get the benefit of a strategy and
> should be fighting over the freelist once the pool exhausts.
I think you are right.
> We don't get to skip wal of course, but we should be able to use a
> bulk insert strategy, especially if there was some way of predicting
> that a large number of tuples were going to be inserted. I'm
> wondering though of contention on the free list is in fact the OP's
> problem.
Not sure. It might be some other LWLock, but it's hard to tell which
one from the information provided.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-05-24 21:34:22 | Re: Draft release notes complete |
Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2012-05-24 21:22:59 | Re: Backends stalled in 'startup' state: index corruption |