From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patch to improve performance of replay of AccessExclusiveLock |
Date: | 2017-03-07 12:13:48 |
Message-ID: | CANP8+jJPMWN8kXd3v24N7fu+qc9B_VHOTKRue6A5Xyb1cvVLEg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7 March 2017 at 19:22, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> That may need tweaking. Likely it could be smaller if we had some sort
>>> of bloom filter to mark if the transaction had obtained any AEL locks,
>>> that way it could skip. Initially I really didn't want to make the
>>> patch too complex. I had thought that a fairly large hash table would
>>> fix the problem well enough, as quite possibly most buckets would be
>>> empty and non empty buckets have short lists.
>>
>> ISTM that we should mark each COMMIT if it has an AEL, so we can avoid
>> any overhead in the common case.
>>
>> So an additional sub-record for the commit/abort wal record, via
>> include/access/xact.h
>
> That would be ideal if we could do that, but doing that for so many
> possible transaction IDs seems impractical.
Don't understand this. I'm talking about setting a flag on
commit/abort WAL records, like the attached.
We just need to track info so we can set the flag at EOXact and we're done.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
partial.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-03-07 12:14:35 | Re: foreign partition DDL regression tests |
Previous Message | Ivan Kartyshov | 2017-03-07 11:48:21 | Re: make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed |