From: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Rishu Bagga <rishu(dot)postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Optimize LISTEN/NOTIFY |
Date: | 2025-09-29 02:33:54 |
Message-ID: | D1CF7CA5-213A-4FC1-86DB-052D58904A0A@gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Sep 28, 2025, at 18:24, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> wrote:
>
>>
>> I might miss the factor of holding an exclusive lock. I will revisit
>> that part again.
>
> I've re-read this entire thread, and I actually think my original
> approaches are more promising, that is, the
> 0001-optimize_listen_notify-v4.patch patch, doing multicast targeted
> signaling.
>
> Therefore, merely consider the latest patch as PoC with some possible
> interesting ideas.
>
> Before this patch, I had never used PostgreSQL's timeout mechanism
> before, so I didn't consider it when thinking about how to solve the
> remaining problems with 0001-optimize_listen_notify-v4.patch, which
> currently can't guarantee that all listening backends will eventually
> catch up, since it just kicks one of the most lagging ones, for each
> notification. This could be a problem in practise if there is a long
> period of time with no notifications coming in. Then some listening
> backends could end up not being signaled and would stay behind,
> preventing the queue tail from advancing.
>
> I'm thinking maybe somehow we can use the timeout mechanism here, but
> I'm not sure how yet. Any ideas?
>
> /Joel
Hi Joel,
I never had a concern about using the timeout mechanism. My comment was about enabling timeout duplicately.
I just revisited the code, now I agree that I was over-worried because I missed considering NotifyQueueLock. With the lock protection, a backend process’ QUEUE_BACKEND_WAKEUP_PENDING_FLAG won’t have race condition, then it should have no duplicate signals sending to the same backend process. Then in the backend process, you have “last_wakeup_start_time” that avoids duplicate timeout within a configured period, and you reset last_wakeup_start_time in asyncQueueReadAllNotifications() together with cleaning the QUEUE_BACKEND_WAKEUP_PENDING_FLAG.
So, overall v2 looks good to me.
One last tiny comment is about naming of last_wakeup_start_time. I think it can be renamed to “last_wakeup_time”. Because the variable just records when asyncQueueReadAllNotifications() last time called, there seems not a meaning of “start” involved.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-09-29 02:41:47 | Re: plan shape work |
Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2025-09-29 02:09:07 | Re: Eager aggregation, take 3 |