Re: strange perf regression with data checksums

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>
Cc: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: strange perf regression with data checksums
Date: 2025-05-19 19:37:14
Message-ID: z5elspkkpgxuc4hmgx2btgclpwp5wvfsak6e5fht3wmatkgwpr@ehqdvj5wgdel
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2025-05-19 18:13:02 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I believe enabling data checksums simply makes it more severe, because
> the BufferGetLSNAtomic() has to obtain header lock, which uses the same
> "state" field, with exactly the same retry logic. It can probably happen
> even without it, but as the lock is exclusive, it also "serializes" the
> access, making the conflicts more likely.
>
> BufferGetLSNAtomic does this:
>
> bufHdr = GetBufferDescriptor(buffer - 1);
> buf_state = LockBufHdr(bufHdr);
> lsn = PageGetLSN(page);
> UnlockBufHdr(bufHdr, buf_state);
>
> AFAICS the lock is needed simply to read a consistent value from the
> page header, but maybe we could have an atomic variable with a copy of
> the LSN in the buffer descriptor?

I think we can do better - something like

#ifdef PG_HAVE_8BYTE_SINGLE_COPY_ATOMICITY
lsn = PageGetLSN(page);
#else
buf_state = LockBufHdr(bufHdr);
lsn = PageGetLSN(page);
UnlockBufHdr(bufHdr, buf_state);
#endif

All perf relevant systems support reading 8 bytes without a chance of
tearing...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2025-05-19 19:45:01 Re: strange perf regression with data checksums
Previous Message Vik Fearing 2025-05-19 19:01:39 Re: Should we optimize the `ORDER BY random() LIMIT x` case?