Re: heavily contended lwlocks with long wait queues scale badly
От | Jonathan S. Katz |
---|---|
Тема | Re: heavily contended lwlocks with long wait queues scale badly |
Дата | |
Msg-id | bb410d95-91d2-4c84-986c-7009d5477dd0@postgresql.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: heavily contended lwlocks with long wait queues scale badly (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: heavily contended lwlocks with long wait queues scale badly
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/16/24 1:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 09:47:33AM -0500, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >> I have similar data sources to Nathan/Michael and I'm trying to avoid piling >> on, but one case that's interesting occurred after a major version upgrade >> from PG10 to PG14 on a database supporting a very active/highly concurrent >> workload. On inspection, it seems like backpatching would help this >> particularly case. >> >> With 10/11 EOL, I do wonder if we'll see more of these reports on upgrade to >> < PG16. >> >> (I was in favor of backpatching prior; opinion is unchanged). > > Hearing nothing, I have prepared a set of patches for v12~v15, > checking all the lwlock paths for all the branches. At the end the > set of changes look rather sane to me regarding the queue handlings. > > I have also run some numbers on all the branches, and the test case > posted upthread falls off dramatically after 512 concurrent > connections at the top of all the stable branches :( > > For example on REL_12_STABLE with and without the patch attached: > num v12 v12+patch > 1 29717.151665 29096.707588 > 2 63257.709301 61889.476318 > 4 127921.873393 124575.901330 > 8 231400.571662 230562.725174 > 16 343911.185351 312432.897015 > 32 291748.985280 281011.787701 > 64 268998.728648 269975.605115 > 128 297332.597018 286449.176950 > 256 243902.817657 240559.122309 > 512 190069.602270 194510.718508 > 768 58915.650225 165714.707198 > 1024 39920.950552 149433.836901 > 2048 16922.391688 108164.301054 > 4096 6229.063321 69032.338708 > > I'd like to apply that, just let me know if you have any comments > and/or objections. Wow. All I can say is that my opinion remains unchanged on going forward with backpatching. Looking at the code, I understand an argument for not backpatching given we modify the struct, but this does seem low-risk/high-reward and should help PostgreSQL to run better on this higher throughput workloads. Thanks, Jonathan
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: