On 14 January 2013 19:12, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Lock code says it calculates "hash value once and then pass around as needed".
>> But it actually calculates it twice for new locks.
>> Trivial patch attached to make it follow the comments in
>> LockTagHashCode and save a few cycles.
> Hmm. This is a nice idea, but it doesn't look right to me, because
> you're searching LockMethodLocalHash with a hash code intended to be
> used in LockMethodLockHash, and the two hashing schemes are not
> compatible, because the former is hashing a LOCALLOCKTAG, and the
> latter is hashing a LOCKTAG, and both are just using tag_hash.
You're right. At local level we need to refcount requests, whereas we
only ever pass first request through to main table. That means the
unique key is different.
> On the flip side if I'm wrong and the hashing schemes are compatible,
> there are other places in the file where the same trick could be
But having said that, we already make ProcLockHash use a variation of
the LockHash to avoid recalculation.
So we should just make
LocalLockTagHashCode = LockTagHashCode() + mode;
Then we can use LockTagHashCode everywhere, which is easier to do than
documenting why we don't.
Anyway, just an idle thought while looking into something else.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David Johnston||Date: 2013-01-14 20:09:59|
|Subject: Re: count(*) of zero rows returns 1|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2013-01-14 19:12:24|
|Subject: Re: Hash twice|