| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query |
| Date: | 2022-02-01 14:11:03 |
| Message-ID: | a398dab8-486c-4a54-5aa6-f9faab2ea1fa@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022/02/01 17:27, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>> * Similar to relation extension, page locks are also held for a short
>> * duration, so imposing such a restriction won't hurt.
>
> I don't believe a path involving vacuum_delay_point() calls is
> short-duration'ed.
Yes.
>> One thing that really bothers me about commit e2c79e14 is that
>> LockPage() is called, not LockBuffer(). GIN had no LockPage() calls
>> before that commit, and is now the only code in the entire system that
>> calls LockPage()/ConditionalLockPage() (the hash am no longer uses
>> page heavyweight locks following recent work there).
>
> I agree to the discussion. Can't we use other mechanism here to get
> rid of the Lockpage()?
I have no good idea for that yet, but I agree it's better to get rid of page level lock.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-02-01 14:18:01 | Re: Plug minor memleak in pg_dump |
| Previous Message | gkokolatos | 2022-02-01 13:36:05 | Plug minor memleak in pg_dump |