Re: Improve eviction algorithm in ReorderBuffer

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improve eviction algorithm in ReorderBuffer
Date: 2023-12-19 11:02:01
Message-ID: CAA4eK1+m=hfCSB0MWGTODM5Dj=P6Mzns3vQPKrTxp6ccVWgL2g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 8:31 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:40 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The individual transactions shouldn't cross
> > 'logical_decoding_work_mem'. I got a bit confused by your proposal to
> > maintain the lists: "...splitting it into two lists: transactions
> > consuming 5% < and 5% >= of the memory limit, and checking the 5% >=
> > list preferably.". In the previous sentence, what did you mean by
> > transactions consuming 5% >= of the memory limit? I got the impression
> > that you are saying to maintain them in a separate transaction list
> > which doesn't seems to be the case.
>
> I wanted to mean that there are three lists in total: the first one
> maintain the transactions consuming more than 10% of
> logical_decoding_work_mem,
>

How can we have multiple transactions in the list consuming more than
10% of logical_decoding_work_mem? Shouldn't we perform serialization
before any xact reaches logical_decoding_work_mem?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabrice Chapuis 2023-12-19 11:26:54 pg_waldump
Previous Message vignesh C 2023-12-19 10:59:12 Re: Add new for_each macros for iterating over a List that do not require ListCell pointer