On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 07:25:10PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 05:49, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> On the whole, I don't especially like this approach, because of the
>> confusion between peak lock count and end-of-xact lock count. That
>> seems way too likely to cause problems.
>
>Thanks for having a look at this. I've not addressed the points
>you've mentioned due to what you mention above. The only way I can
>think of so far to resolve that would be to add something to track
>peak lock usage. The best I can think of to do that, short of adding
>something to dynahash.c is to check how many locks are held each time
>we obtain a lock, then if that count is higher than the previous time
>we checked, then update the maximum locks held, (probably a global
>variable). That seems pretty horrible to me and adds overhead each
>time we obtain a lock, which is a pretty performance-critical path.
>
Would it really be a measurable overhead? I mean, we only really need
one int counter, and you don't need to do the check on every lock
acquisition - you just need to recheck on the first lock release. But
maybe I'm underestimating how expensive it is ...
Talking about dynahash - doesn't it already track this information?
Maybe not directly but surely it has to track the number of entries in
the hash table, in order to compute fill factor. Can't we piggy-back on
that and track the highest fill-factor for a particular period of time?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
