Re: Patch to improve performance of replay of AccessExclusiveLock

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Patch to improve performance of replay of AccessExclusiveLock
Date: 2017-03-22 14:39:57
Message-ID: CANP8+jJ6n12+rMrYC3xm=u8pzJG-J79ddU+u+CJ3bGknLp9qeA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 22 March 2017 at 13:19, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

>> Given that, do you agree to me applying assign_aels_against_subxids.v1.patch
>> as well?
>
> Does applying assign_aels_against_subxids.v1.patch still need to keep
> the loop to release the subxacts? Won't this be gone already with the
> subxact commit/abort record replays?

No it is still required because aborts and commits might have
subcommitted subxids.

> This does possibly mean that we perform more loops over the
> RecoveryLockList even if the subxact does not have an AELs, but its
> parent xact does. Wonder if this is a good price to pay for releasing
> the locks earlier?

We'd be performing the same number of loops as we do now. It's just
now they would have a purpose.

But we aren't doing it at all unless the top level xid has at least
one AEL, so the bulk of the problem is gone.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-03-22 14:41:06 Re: WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-03-22 14:29:27 Re: increasing the default WAL segment size