| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2 |
| Date: | 2006-09-14 13:40:50 |
| Message-ID: | 28167.1158241250@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
I wrote:
> Yeah, I was just looking at that. Removing useless entries from the
> child-xid list would presumably help him. Considering we're not even
> formally in beta yet, I'm probably being too conservative to recommend
> we not touch it.
Actually ... wait a minute. We do not assign an XID to a subtransaction
at all unless it writes a tuple to disk (see GetCurrentTransactionId
and its callers). So this whole "optimization" idea is redundant.
I see a bug though, which is that RecordSubTransactionAbort() calls
GetCurrentTransactionId() before having verified that it needs to do
anything. This means that we'll generate and then discard an XID
uselessly in a failed subxact that didn't touch disk. Worth fixing,
but it doesn't look like this is Theo's problem.
Unless I'm missing something, Theo's problem must involve having done
tuple updates in 4.6M different subtransactions.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-14 13:54:07 | Re: Interesting tight loop |
| Previous Message | Theo Schlossnagle | 2006-09-14 13:08:52 | Re: Interesting tight loop |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-14 13:57:59 | Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-14 12:41:51 | Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2 |