Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Tune GetSnapshotData() during Hot Standby by avoiding loop
| От | Simon Riggs |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Tune GetSnapshotData() during Hot Standby by avoiding loop |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1271701076.8305.19751.camel@ebony обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Tune GetSnapshotData() during Hot Standby by avoiding loop (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 10:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: > > On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 17:44 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >>> Choices are > >>> 1. Check RecoveryInProgress() once outside of lock, plus wild rumour of > >>> Murphy > >>> 2. Check RecoveryInProgress() before and after holding lock > >>> 3. Check RecoveryInProgress() while holding lock > >> > >> 4. Check RecoveryInProgress() once outside of lock, and scan the > >> ProcArray anyway, just in case. That's what we did before this patch. > >> Document that takenDuringRecovery == true means that the snapshot was > >> most likely taken during recovery, but there is some race conditions > >> where takenDuringRecovery is true even though the snapshot was taken > >> just after recovery finished. AFAICS all of the other current uses of > >> takenDuringRecovery work fine with that. > > > Checking RecoveryInProgress() is much cheaper than scanning the whole > > ProcArray, so (4) is definitely worse than 1-3. > > If the lock we're talking about is an LWLock, #3 is okay. If it's a > spinlock, not so much. Just committed the following patch to implement option #3. We test RecoveryInProgress() after the LWLockAcquire rather than before. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: