| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager |
| Date: | 2017-05-13 11:27:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LQXzofmao0GfrpNY6=wS67kCd=1SiqSmWX+5Nb9nt00g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> ... I'd like to propose to change relation
>>> extension lock management so that it works using LWLock instead.
>
>> That's not a good idea because it'll make the code that executes while
>> holding that lock noninterruptible.
>
> Is that really a problem? We typically only hold it over one kernel call,
> which ought to be noninterruptible anyway.
>
During parallel bulk load operations, I think we hold it over multiple
kernel calls.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-05-13 12:38:30 | Re: [PATCH v2] Progress command to monitor progression of long running SQL queries |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-05-13 11:19:52 | Re: Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager |