Re: cheaper snapshots redux - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: cheaper snapshots redux
Date
Msg-id 215.1314119670@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: cheaper snapshots redux  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> That's certainly a fair concern, and it might even be worse than
> O(n^2).  On the other hand, the current approach involves scanning the
> entire ProcArray for every snapshot, even if nothing has changed and
> 90% of the backends are sitting around playing tiddlywinks, so I don't
> think I'm giving up something for nothing except perhaps in the case
> where there is only one active backend in the entire system.  On the
> other hand, you could be entirely correct that the current
> implementation wins in the uncontended case.  Without testing it, I
> just don't know...

Sure.  Like I said, I don't know that this can't be made to work.
I'm just pointing out that we have to keep an eye on the single-backend
case as well as the many-backends case.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David E. Wheeler"
Date:
Subject: Re: Getting rid of pg_pltemplate
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Range Types