Re: Concurrent HOT Update interference

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Concurrent HOT Update interference
Date: 2013-05-10 15:41:59
Message-ID: CA+U5nMKDvraqePORoDxtNL3V32X_W68eJRAku9QPrjSYzPDi6A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10 May 2013 15:04, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> right. hm, I guess this is something to keep in mind if you start
> going down the path of 'keep frequently accessed buffers pinned for
> longer durations -- possibly even forever'.

Just to mention that this scenario effectively starves anybody wanting
a cleanup lock, which was the reason we put in logic to VACUUM to skip
busy pages.

We just need to extend that thought to page level cleanup also.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2013-05-10 15:50:39 Re: Concurrent HOT Update interference
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2013-05-10 15:37:58 Bug in VACUUM reporting of "removed %d row versions" in 9.2+