Re: let's kill AtSubStart_Notify
От | Jeevan Ladhe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: let's kill AtSubStart_Notify |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAOgcT0NvoGatroqrcgM4M7bLR6=ntSSbBQQyJUbfE6gzXs8D9g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | let's kill AtSubStart_Notify (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: let's kill AtSubStart_Notify
Re: let's kill AtSubStart_Notify |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Robert,
Generally, a subsystem can avoid needing a callback at subtransaction
start (or transaction start) by detecting new levels of
subtransactions at time of use.
Yes I agree with this argument.
A typical practice is to maintain a
stack which has entries only for those transaction nesting levels
where the functionality was used. The attached patch implements this
method for async.c.
I have reviewed your patch, and it seems correctly implementing the
actions per subtransactions using stack. Atleast I could not find
any flaw with your implementation here.
I was a little surprised to find that it makes a
pretty noticeable performance difference when starting and ending
trivial subtransactions. I used this test case:
\timing
do $$begin for i in 1 .. 10000000 loop begin null; exception when
others then null; end; end loop; end;$$;
I ran your testcase and on my VM I get numbers like 3593.801 ms
without patch and 3593.801 with the patch, average of 5 runs each.
The runs were quite consistent.
Further make check also passing well.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: