From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Paul Friedman <paul(dot)friedman(at)streetlightdata(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: LWLocks by LockManager slowing large DB |
Date: | 2021-04-14 03:04:50 |
Message-ID: | 3440776.1618369490@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2021-04-13 19:16:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Like this? This passes check-world, modulo the one very-unsurprising
>> regression test change. I've not tried to do any performance testing.
> I wonder if there's a realistic chance it could create additional
> deadlocks that don't exist right now?
Not on user tables, because we'd always be holding at least as much
of a lock on the parent table. However ...
> Would it be a problem that we'd still release the locks on catalog
> tables early, but not on its toast table?
... hmm, not sure. I can't immediately think of a scenario where
it'd be problematic (or any more problematic than DDL on a catalog
would be anyway). But that doesn't mean there isn't one.
The concerns that had come to my mind were more along the lines
of things like pg_dump requiring a larger footprint in the shared
lock table. We could alleviate that by increasing the default
value of max_locks_per_transaction, perhaps.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-04-14 03:48:16 | Re: LWLocks by LockManager slowing large DB |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-04-14 01:01:58 | Re: LWLocks by LockManager slowing large DB |