Re: adding wait_start column to pg_locks

From: torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
Cc: Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: adding wait_start column to pg_locks
Date: 2021-02-04 15:03:51
Message-ID: b8425207811a6b99d0ecd76844906a8e@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2021-02-03 11:23, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> 64-bit fetches are not atomic on some platforms. So spinlock is
>> necessary when updating "waitStart" without holding the partition
>> lock? Also GetLockStatusData() needs spinlock when reading
>> "waitStart"?
>
> Also it might be worth thinking to use 64-bit atomic operations like
> pg_atomic_read_u64(), for that.

Thanks for your suggestion and advice!

In the attached patch I used pg_atomic_read_u64() and
pg_atomic_write_u64().

waitStart is TimestampTz i.e., int64, but it seems pg_atomic_read_xxx
and pg_atomic_write_xxx only supports unsigned int, so I cast the type.

I may be using these functions not correctly, so if something is wrong,
I would appreciate any comments.

About the documentation, since your suggestion seems better than v6, I
used it as is.

Regards,

--
Atsushi Torikoshi

Attachment Content-Type Size
v7-0001-To-examine-the-duration-of-locks-we-did-join-on-p.patch text/x-diff 11.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mahendra Singh Thalor 2021-02-04 15:04:13 Re: Faulty HEAP_XMAX_LOCK_ONLY & HEAP_KEYS_UPDATED hintbit combination
Previous Message John Naylor 2021-02-04 15:02:08 get rid of <foreignphrase> tags in the docs?