On 21.02.2019 15:45, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 9:33 AM Arthur Zakirov <a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> I'm working on the (b) approach. I thought about a priority queue
>> structure. There no such ready structure within PostgreSQL sources
>> except binaryheap.c, but it isn't for concurrent algorithms.
>
> I don't see why you need a priority queue or, really, any other fancy
> data structure. It seems like all you need to do is somehow set it up
> so that a backend which doesn't use a dictionary for a while will
> dsm_detach() the segment. Eventually an unused dictionary will have
> no remaining references and will go away.
Hm, I didn't think in this way. Agree that using a new data structure is
overengineering.
Now in the current patch all DSM segments are pinned (and therefore
dsm_pin_segment() is called). So a dictionary lives in shared memory
even if nobody have the reference to it.
I thought about periodically scanning the shared hash table and
unpinning old and unused dictionaries. But this approach needs
sequential scan facility for dshash. Happily there is the patch from
Kyotaro-san (the v16-0001-sequential-scan-for-dshash.patch part):
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190221.160555.191280262.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Your approach looks simpler. It is necessary just to periodically scan
dictionaries' cache hash table and not call dsm_pin_segment() when a DSM
segment initialized. It also means that a dictionary is loaded into DSM
only while there is a backend which attached the dictionary's DSM.
--
Arthur Zakirov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
