On 05/15/13 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Todd A. Cook" <tcook@blackducksoftware.com> writes:
>> On 05/15/13 13:27, tcook@blackducksoftware.com wrote:
>>> When nearly identical update queries arrive simultaneously, the first one to
>>> execute runs normally, but subsequent executions run _extremely_ slowly.
>>> We've seen this behaviour in production, and the contrived test case below
>>> reproduces the issue.
>
>> I've repeated the test below on a 9.1.9 installation, and it works fine there.
>
> Given the reference to EvalPlanQual in your stack trace, I'm thinking
> the explanation is this 9.0 fix:
Thanks for the explanation. Is there any chance of that fix being backpatched
into 8.4?
-- todd
> Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Branch: master Release: REL9_0_BR [9f2ee8f28] 2009-10-26 02:26:45 +0000
>
> Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
> a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
> "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
> UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
> appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
> only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
> relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
> worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
>
> Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
> execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
> every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
> runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
> make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
> signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
> already-built test plan.
>
> This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
> targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
> duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
> other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
> is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
> which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
