From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | tender wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock |
Date: | 2024-01-08 13:18:09 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-u1-TM6s9medMvUXuNjfKdNNwA9eXUzA_YDsqwH12jz+w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 4:55 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> The more I look at TransactionGroupUpdateXidStatus, the more I think
> it's broken, and while we do have some tests, I don't have confidence
> that they cover all possible cases.
>
> Or, at least, if this code is good, then it hasn't been sufficiently
> explained.
Any thought about a case in which you think it might be broken, I mean
any vague thought might also help where you think it might not work as
expected so that I can also think in that direction. It might be
possible that I might not be thinking of some perspective that you are
thinking and comments might be lacking from that point of view.
> If we have multiple processes trying to write bits to clog, and they are
> using different banks, then the LWLockConditionalAcquire will be able to
> acquire the bank lock
Do you think there is a problem with multiple processes getting the
lock? I mean they are modifying different CLOG pages so that can be
done concurrently right?
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2024-01-08 13:41:02 | Re: Escape output of pg_amcheck test |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-01-08 12:48:54 | Re: INFORMATION_SCHEMA note |