Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2
Date
Msg-id 22293.1154982461@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> I was thinking at what time was the most appropiate to insert or remove
> an Xid from the cache.  We can do without any excl-locking because 1) we
> already assume the storing of an Xid to be atomic, and 2) no one can be
> interested in querying for an Xid before the originating transaction has
> had the chance to write a tuple with that Xid anyway.

Actually ... that fails if GetSnapshotData is going to copy subtrans
XIDs.  So this area needs more thought.

> On the third hand, are we going to sh-acquire the ProcArray lock while a
> GetSnapshotData copies all subxact Xids of all running transactions?
> ProcArrayLock will become more of a contention point than it already is.

Yeah, but sharelock is better than exclusive lock ...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: buildfarm - make check failures for leveret on 8.0
Next
From: Constantin Teodorescu
Date:
Subject: PostgreSQL performance enhancement when query planner fails to guess the right plan