Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager

From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager
Date: 2020-03-13 05:46:00
Message-ID: CAFiTN-sKHAxGL7rtPKcqVHwNYM7ApsDWf9tSLMs9i566xT30BA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 11:08 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 3:04 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 2:36 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > If we have no other choice, then I see a few downsides of adding a
> > > special check in the LockRelease() call:
> > >
> > > 1. Instead of resetting/decrement the variable from specific APIs like
> > > UnlockRelationForExtension or UnlockPage, we need to have it in
> > > LockRelease. It will also look odd, if set variable in
> > > LockRelationForExtension, but don't reset in the
> > > UnlockRelationForExtension variant. Now, maybe we can allow to reset
> > > it at both places if it is a flag, but not if it is a counter
> > > variable.
> > >
> > > 2. One can argue that adding extra instructions in a generic path
> > > (like LockRelease) is not a good idea, especially if those are for an
> > > Assert. I understand this won't add anything which we can measure by
> > > standard benchmarks.
> >
> > I have just written a WIP patch for relation extension lock where
> > instead of incrementing and decrementing the counter in
> > LockRelationForExtension and UnlockRelationForExtension respectively.
> > We can just set and reset the flag in LockAcquireExtended and
> > LockRelease. So this patch appears simple to me as we are not
> > involving the transaction APIs to set and reset the flag. However, we
> > need to add an extra check as you have already mentioned. I think we
> > could measure the performance and see whether it has any impact or
> > not?
> >
>
> LockAcquireExtended()
> {
> ..
> + if (locktag->locktag_type == LOCKTAG_RELATION_EXTEND)
> + IsRelationExtensionLockHeld = true;
> ..
> }
>
> Can we move this check inside a function (CheckAndSetLockHeld or
> something like that) as we need to add a similar thing for page lock?

ok

> Also, how about moving the set and reset of these flags to
> GrantLockLocal and RemoveLocalLock as that will further reduce the
> number of places where we need to add such a check.

Make sense to me.

Another thing is
> to see if it makes sense to have a macro like LOCALLOCK_LOCKMETHOD to
> get the lock tag.

ok

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2020-03-13 06:08:12 Re: [PATCH] Skip llvm bytecode generation if LLVM is missing
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2020-03-13 05:38:08 Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager