From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Allow processes to reset procArrayGroupNext themselves instead of leader resetting for all the followers |
Date: | 2022-11-28 05:53:15 |
Message-ID: | CALj2ACXaBuFy=kdgX_Hii0dMfj3aXnu6iP+mEgU_MtxtZ3cKJQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 2:48 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-11-24 10:43:46 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > While working on something else, I noticed that the proc array group
> > XID clearing leader resets procArrayGroupNext of all the followers
> > atomically along with procArrayGroupMember. ISTM that it's enough for
> > the followers to exit the wait loop and continue if the leader resets
> > just procArrayGroupMember, the followers can reset procArrayGroupNext
> > by themselves. This relieves the leader a bit, especially when there
> > are many followers, as it avoids a bunch of atomic writes and
> > pg_write_barrier() for the leader .
>
> I doubt this is a useful change - the leader already has to modify the
> relevant cacheline (for procArrayGroupMember). That makes it pretty much free
> to modify another field in the same cacheline.
Agreed. Thanks for the response.
--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-11-28 06:10:58 | Re: Collation version tracking for macOS |
Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-11-28 05:46:09 | Re: Reducing power consumption on idle servers |