From: | "movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca" <movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: POC and rebased patch for CSN based snapshots |
Date: | 2020-07-14 02:02:10 |
Message-ID: | 2020071410020766642040@highgo.ca |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>When checking each tuple visibility, we always have to get the CSN
>corresponding to XMIN or XMAX from CSN SLRU. In the past discussion,
>there was the suggestion that CSN should be stored in the tuple header
>or somewhere (like hint bit) to avoid the overhead by very frequehntly
>lookup for CSN SLRU. I'm not sure the conclusion of this discussion.
>But this patch doesn't seem to adopt that idea. So did you confirm that
>such performance overhead by lookup for CSN SLRU is negligible?
This patch came from postgrespro's patch which shows a good performance,
I have simple test on current patch and result no performance decline.
And not everytime we do a tuple visibility need lookup forCSN SLRU, only xid
large than 'TransactionXmin' need that. Maybe we have not touch the case
which cause bad performance, so it shows good performance temporary.
>Of course I know that idea has big issue, i.e., there is no enough space
>to store CSN in a tuple header if CSN is 64 bits. If CSN is 32 bits, we may
>be able to replace XMIN or XMAX with CSN corresponding to them. But
>it means that we have to struggle with one more wraparound issue
>(CSN wraparound issue). So it's not easy to adopt that idea...
>Sorry if this was already discussed and concluded...
I think your point with CSN in tuple header is a exciting approach, but I have
not seen the discussion, can you show me the discussion address?
Regards,
Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan)
URL : www.highgo.ca
EMAIL: mailto:movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-07-14 02:19:36 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |
Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2020-07-14 01:57:10 | Re: Retry Cached Remote Connections for postgres_fdw in case remote backend gets killed/goes away |