Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobkHX-jQqMpBMdK+SoZfgSLxwkqo+=9pOQhb1YnOzztXw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile
Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wait -- OP's gripe this isn't regarding standard pgbench, but multiple
> large concurrent 'insert into foo select...'.  I looked in the code
> and it appears that the only bulk insert strategy using operations are
> copy, create table as select, and table rewrite operations. Concurrent
> INSERT SELECT apparently doesn't get the benefit of a strategy and
> should be fighting over the freelist once the pool exhausts.

I think you are right.

> We don't get to skip wal of course, but we should be able to use a
> bulk insert strategy, especially if there was some way of predicting
> that a large number of tuples were going to be inserted.  I'm
> wondering though of contention on the free list is in fact the OP's
> problem.

Not sure.  It might be some other LWLock, but it's hard to tell which
one from the information provided.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Sabino Mullane
Date:
Subject: Re: Backends stalled in 'startup' state: index corruption
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Draft release notes complete