Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager
Date
Msg-id 13445.1581887545@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweightlock manager  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2020-02-14 13:34:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think the group locking + deadlock detection things are more
>> fundamental than you might be crediting, but I agree that having
>> parallel mechanisms has its own set of pitfalls.

> It's possible. But I'm also hesitant to believe that we'll not need
> other lock types that conflict between leader/worker, but that still
> need deadlock detection.  The more work we want to parallelize, the more
> likely that imo will become.

Yeah.  The concept that leader and workers can't conflict seems to me
to be dependent, in a very fundamental way, on the assumption that
we only need to parallelize read-only workloads.  I don't think that's
going to have a long half-life.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweightlock manager
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: jsonb_object() seems to be buggy. jsonb_build_object() is good.