From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Karina Litskevich <litskevichkarina(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_stat_statements: Avoid holding excessive lock |
Date: | 2024-11-07 08:16:51 |
Message-ID: | Zyx3c_dUmiGEN1Wh@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 08:37:08PM +0300, Karina Litskevich wrote:
> I suggest eliminating holding the excessive lock. See the attached patch.
> This would also restore the consistency between the code and the comments
> about entry's mutex spinlock usage.
You are right. minmax_stats_since and stats_since are only set when
an entry is allocated or reset, so this is not going to matter.
> + /*
> + * There is no need to hold entry->mutex when reading stats_since and
> + * minmax_stats_since for (unlike counters) they are always written
> + * while holding pgss->lock exclusively. We are holding pgss->lock
> + * shared so there should be no race here.
> + */
> stats_since = entry->stats_since;
> minmax_stats_since = entry->minmax_stats_since;
> - SpinLockRelease(&entry->mutex);
The comment could be simpler, say a "The spinlock is not required when
reading these two as they are always updated when holding pgss->lock
exclusively.". Or something like that.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2024-11-07 08:34:14 | Re: UUID v7 |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2024-11-07 08:16:14 | Re: doc: pgevent.dll location |