From: | Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: concurrent snapshots |
Date: | 2011-09-08 21:45:28 |
Message-ID: | CA+CSw_sS8vN2B-aCR35R7CwDyyej2NPHZAMA6t5606FyaovvWw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm not convinced it's anywhere near that easy. For one thing, on at
> least one big server I'm playing with, memory latency on shared memory
> is vastly higher (like >10x!) than on backend-local memory due to NUMA
> effects.
I wonder if both the shared mem and non-local memory issue can be
circumvented by using a slru like mechanism as a side channel to
publish taken snapshots and make concurrent xids available with a
sinval/hasmessages like per proc flag in shared memory to notify of
migrated snapshots.
I'll have to think through the space, locking and performance
considerations. That might take a small while though, I just managed
to contract the flu and can't really think straight.
Sorry to waste your time if this whole approach is completely untenable.
It seemed like a interesting topic to sink my teeth in, but in hindsight
seems a bit too much for a first try.
--
Ants Aasma
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-09-08 21:59:45 | Re: Large C files |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-09-08 21:03:06 | Re: Protecting against multiple instances per cluster |