On 2013-09-17 12:29:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> But I'm skeptical that you're going to be able to accomplish that,
> especially without adversely affecting maintainability. I think the
> way that you're proposing to use lwlocks here is sufficiently
> different from what the rest of the system does that it's going to be
> hard to avoid system-wide affects that can't easily be caught during
> code review;
I actually think extending lwlocks to allow downgrading an exclusive
lock is a good idea, independent of this path, and I think there are
some areas of the code where we could use that capability to increase
scalability. Now, that might be because I pretty much suggested using
them in such a way to solve some of the problems :P
I don't think they solve the issue of this patch (holding several nbtree
pages locked across heap operations) though.
> I agree that unpredictable deadlocks are bad. I think the fundamental
> problem with UPSERT, MERGE, and this proposal is what happens when the
> conflicting tuple is present but not visible to your scan, either
> because it hasn't committed yet or because it has committed but is not
> visible to your snapshot. I'm not clear on how you handle that in
> your approach.
Hm. I think it should be handled exactly the way we handle it for unique
indexes today. Wait till it's clear whether you can proceed.
At some point we might to extend that logic to more cases, but that
should be separate discussion imo.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services