Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation
От | Kevin Grittner |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4E9318EA0200002500041D1D@gw.wicourts.gov обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation (Dan Ports <drkp@csail.mit.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Dan Ports <drkp@csail.mit.edu> wrote: > I spent some time thinking about this a while back, but didn't > have time to get very far. The problem isn't contention in the > predicate lock manager (which is partitioned) but the single lock > protecting the active SerializableXact state. > > It would probably help things a great deal if we could make that > lock more fine-grained. However, it's tricky to do this without > deadlocking because the serialization failure checks need to > examine a node's neighbors in the dependency graph. Did you ever see much contention on SerializablePredicateLockListLock, or was it just SerializableXactHashLock? I think the former might be able to use the non-blocking techniques, but I fear the main issue is with the latter, which seems like a harder problem. -Kevin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: