Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+Tgmobb-Sun66h=Z9Cj16nj6n-U8=Bj8xpfQSxk9FJsGX3NXA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention
Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'm not entirely happy with the name "nextClearXidElem" but apart from >> that I'm fairly happy with this version. We should probably test it >> to make sure I haven't broken anything; > > > I have verified the patch and it is fine. I have tested it via manual > tests; for long pgbench tests, results are quite similar to previous > versions of patch. > > Few changes, I have made in patch: > > 1. > > +static void > > +ProcArrayGroupClearXid(PGPROC *proc, TransactionId latestXid) > > +{ > > + volatile PROC_HDR *procglobal = ProcGlobal; > > + uint32 nextidx; > > + uint32 wakeidx; > > + int extraWaits = -1; > > + > > + /* We should definitely have an XID to clear. */ > > + Assert(TransactionIdIsValid(pgxact->xid)); > > > > Here Assert is using pgxact which is wrong. > > 2. Made ProcArrayEndTransactionInternal as inline function as > suggested by you. OK, committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: