From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: cheaper snapshots |
Date: | 2011-07-28 19:38:53 |
Message-ID: | 3683.1311881933@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> writes:
> So the basic design could be "a sparse snapshot", consisting of 'xmin,
> xmax, running_txids[numbackends] where each backend manages its own slot
> in running_txids - sets a txid when aquiring one and nulls it at commit,
> possibly advancing xmin if xmin==mytxid.
How is that different from what we're doing now? Basically, what you're
describing is pulling the xids out of the ProcArray and moving them into
a separate data structure. That could be a win I guess if non-snapshot-
related reasons to take ProcArrayLock represent enough of the contention
to be worth separating out, but I suspect they don't. In particular,
the data structure you describe above *cannot* be run lock-free, because
it doesn't provide any consistency guarantees without a lock. You need
everyone to have the same ideas about commit order, and random backends
independently changing array elements without locks won't guarantee
that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2011-07-28 19:40:57 | Re: cheaper snapshots |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2011-07-28 19:32:47 | Re: cheaper snapshots |