Re: cheaper snapshots
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: cheaper snapshots |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3683.1311881933@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
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: