From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SSI non-serializable UPDATE performance |
Date: | 2011-04-27 17:26:52 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTi=DVO4MV1pa8==e2ka1Bgwg-vN+qw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 08:54:31AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Even though this didn't show any difference in Dan's performance
>> tests, it seems like reasonable insurance against creating a new
>> bottleneck in very high concurrency situations.
>>
>> Dan, do you have a patch for this, or should I create one?
>
> Sure, patch is attached.
Reading the code, IIUC, we check for RW conflicts after each write but
only if the writer is running a serializable transaction.
Am I correct in thinking that there is zero impact of SSI if nobody is
running a serializable transaction?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-04-27 17:48:14 | Re: "stored procedures" - use cases? |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-04-27 17:17:50 | Re: timeline garbage in pg_basebackup (was gcc 4.6 warnings -Wunused-but-set-variable) |