Re: Master-slave visibility order - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Master-slave visibility order
Date
Msg-id 9541.1377813565@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Master-slave visibility order  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Master-slave visibility order  (Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> But I think that actually coordinating a consistent visibility order
> between commit, wal insertion and the procarray would have bigger
> scalability impact than the second record. I might be missing some
> clever tricks here though.

Yeah.  ISTM the only way to really guarantee that the visible commit
order is the same would be for transactions to hold the ProcArrayLock
while they're inserting that WAL record.  Needless to say, that would
be absolutely disastrous performance-wise.

Or at least, that's true as long as we rely on the current procarray-based
mechanism for noting that a transaction is still in progress.  Maybe
there's some other approach altogether.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE