Re: cheaper snapshots
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: cheaper snapshots |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 3683.1311881933@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: cheaper snapshots (Hannu Krosing <hannu@krosing.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: cheaper snapshots
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu@krosing.net> writes:
> So the basic design could be "a sparse snapshot", consisting of 'xmin,
> xmax, running_txids[numbackends] where each backend manages its own slot
> in running_txids - sets a txid when aquiring one and nulls it at commit,
> possibly advancing xmin if xmin==mytxid.
How is that different from what we're doing now? Basically, what you're
describing is pulling the xids out of the ProcArray and moving them into
a separate data structure. That could be a win I guess if non-snapshot-
related reasons to take ProcArrayLock represent enough of the contention
to be worth separating out, but I suspect they don't. In particular,
the data structure you describe above *cannot* be run lock-free, because
it doesn't provide any consistency guarantees without a lock. You need
everyone to have the same ideas about commit order, and random backends
independently changing array elements without locks won't guarantee
that.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: