On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 13:13, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-08-25 12:00:47 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 11:42, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On August 24, 2020 7:38:39 PM PDT, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > > >Hi all,
> > > >
> > > >While testing with DTrace, I realized we acquire
> > > >ReplicationSlotControl lwlock at some places even when
> > > >max_replication_slots is set to 0. For instance, we call
> > > >ReplicationSlotCleanup() within PostgresMian() when an error happens
> > > >and acquire ReplicationSlotControl lwlock.
> > > >
> > > >The attached patch fixes some functions so that we quickly return if
> > > >max_replication_slots is set to 0.
> > >
> > > Why is it worth doing so?
> >
> > I think we can avoid unnecessary overhead caused by acquiring and
> > releasing that lwlock itself. The functions modified by this patch are
> > called during error cleanup or checkpoints. For the former case,
> > since it’s not a commit path the benefit might not be large on common
> > workload but it might help to reduce the latency on a workload whose
> > abort rate is relatively high. Also looking at other functions in
> > slot.c, other functions also do so. I think these are also for
> > preventing unnecessary overhead.
>
> I don't see how these could matter. The error checking path isn't
> reached if no slot is acquired.
I think we always call ReplicationSlotCleanup() which acquires the
lwlock during error cleanup even if no slot is acquired.
> One uncontended lwlock acquisition isn't
> measurable compared to the cost of a checkpoint.
That's true.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
