| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin K Biju <kevinkbiju(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add progressive backoff to XactLockTableWait functions |
| Date: | 2025-07-02 14:04:23 |
| Message-ID: | wbwxb7eeqg7tmtl7duiuumrmfvsccay4exmqsm5nnkuzq7whqw@7m5srukznljl |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2025-07-02 22:55:16 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2025/06/24 1:32, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
> > 3. The proposed solution
> >
> > If the above analysis is sound, one potential fix would be to add
> > separate branching for standby in XactLockTableWait. However, this seems
> > inconsistent with the function's definition—there's simply no lock entry
> > in the lock table for waiting. We could implement a new function for
> > this logic,
>
> To be honest, I'm fine with v3, since it only increases the sleep time
> after 5000 loop iterations, which has negligible performance impact.
I think this is completely the wrong direction. We should make
XactLockTableWait() on standbys, not make the polling smarter.
I think neither v3 nor v4 are viable patches.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker | 2025-07-02 14:09:26 | Re: [PATCH] initdb: Treat empty -U argument as unset username |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2025-07-02 14:01:26 | Re: [PATCH] initdb: Treat empty -U argument as unset username |