Re: Exhaustive list of what takes what locks

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Nikolas Everett <nik9000(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Exhaustive list of what takes what locks
Date: 2011-02-03 17:52:34
Message-ID: AANLkTimfA9M-rQGWTVZTnguK-UkVUc1kb1ZpnhRtbO5q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Nikolas Everett <nik9000(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> This isn't exactly how our workload actually works.  Ours is more deadlock
> prone.  We have many connections all querying account and we do the
> migration in a transaction.  It looks as though the AccessExclusiveLock is
> held until the transaction terminates.

Unfortunately, that's necessary for correctness. :-(

I'd really like to figure out some way to make these cases work with
less locking. 9.1 will have some improvements in this area, as
regards ALTER TABLE, but dropping a constraint will still require
AccessExclusiveLock.

There are even workloads where competition for AccessShareLock on the
target table is a performance bottleneck (try pgbench -S -c 36 -j 36
or so). I've been idly mulling over whether there's any way to
eliminate that locking or at least make it uncontended in the common
case, but so far haven't thought of a solution that I'm entirely happy
with.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Aljoša Mohorović 2011-02-03 17:56:34 Re: getting the most of out multi-core systems for repeated complex SELECT statements
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-02-03 17:46:48 Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...