On 8 November 2018 at 15:01, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Honestly, I *think* that the reason that find_all_inheritors() call is
> there is because I had the idea that it was important to try to lock
> partition hierarchies in the same order in all cases so as to avoid
> spurious deadlocks. However, I don't think we're really achieving
> that goal despite this code. If we arrive at this point having
> already locked some relations, and then lock some more, based on
> whatever got pruned, we're clearly not using a deterministic locking
> order. So I think we could probably rip out the find_all_inheritors()
> call here and change the NoLock in get_partition_dispatch_recurse() to
> just take a lock. That's probably a worthwhile simplification and a
> slight optimization regardless of anything else.
I'd not thought of the locks taken elsewhere case. I guess it just
perhaps reduces the chances of a deadlock then.
A "slight optimization" is one way to categorise it. There are some
benchmarks you might find interesting in [1] and [2]. Patch 0002 does
just what you mention.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/06524959-fda8-cff9-6151-728901897b79%40redhat.com
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKJS1f_1RJyFquuCKRFHTdcXqoPX-PYqAd7nz%3DGVBwvGh4a6xA%40mail.gmail.com
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
