Re: Too coarse predicate locks granularity for B+ tree indexes
От | Rinat Shigapov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Too coarse predicate locks granularity for B+ tree indexes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAJneKMUAwnnvUhYGOg6ddNx=e-GiASiDexauUtdFvxiAD89vsg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Too coarse predicate locks granularity for B+ tree indexes (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Too coarse predicate locks granularity for B+ tree indexes
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas, thank you for the details!
Have you kept the branch that you used to generate the patch? Which commit should the patch apply to?
With kindest regards, Rinat Shigapov
вт, 7 февр. 2023 г. в 17:11, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 11:24 PM Rinat Shigapov <rinatshigapov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does the current PostgreSQL release support B+ tree index predicate locks more granular then page-level locks?
No. I tried to follow some breadcrumbs left by Kevin and Dan that
should allow unique index scans that find a match to skip the btree
page lock, though, and p-lock just the heap tuple. If you like
half-baked experimental code, see the v4-0002 patch in this thread,
where I took some shortcuts (jamming stuff that should be in the
planner down into the executor) for a proof-of-concept:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAEepm%3D2GK3FVdnt5V3d%2Bh9njWipCv_fNL%3DwjxyUhzsF%3D0PcbNg%40mail.gmail.com
With that approach, if it *doesn't* find a match, then you're back to
having to p-lock the whole index page to represent the "gap", so that
you can conflict with anyone who tries to insert a matching value
later. I believe the next-key approach would allow for finer grained
gap-locks (haven't studied that myself), but that's a secondary
problem; the primary problem (it seems to me) is getting rid of index
locks completely in the (common?) case that you have a qualifying
match.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: