Re: Transaction commits VS Transaction commits (with parallel) VSquery mean time
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Transaction commits VS Transaction commits (with parallel) VSquery mean time |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1KS33+_QoB3uc1B-uD_OY22q7ioz1UsLq_N=M4gKr6whg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Transaction commits VS Transaction commits (with parallel) VSquery mean time (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Transaction commits VS Transaction commits (with parallel) VSquery mean time
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 6:53 AM Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 9:08 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> As part of this thread, maybe we can >> just fix the case of the parallel cooperating transaction. > > > With the current patch, all the parallel implementation transaction are getting > skipped, in my tests parallel workers are the major factor in the transaction > stats counter. Even before parallelism, the stats of the autovacuum and etc > are still present but their contribution is not greatly influencing the stats. > > I agree with you in fixing the stats with parallel workers and improve stats. > I was proposing to fix only the transaction started with StartParallelWorkerTransaction by using is_parallel_worker flag as discussed above. I understand that it won't completely fix the problem reported by you, but it will be a step in that direction. My main worry is that if we fix it the way you are proposing and we also invent a new way to deal with all other internal transactions, then the fix done by us now needs to be changed/reverted. Note, that this fix needs to be backpatched as well, so we should avoid doing any fix which needs to be changed or reverted. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: