Re: Repeated semop calls - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: Repeated semop calls
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1xtjYA2k5E9eJemJ9FnDL3FSC8en3B8ae5k-eL4+yScdA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Repeated semop calls  ("Anand Kumar, Karthik" <Karthik.AnandKumar@classmates.com>)
Responses Re: Repeated semop calls
Re: Repeated semop calls
List pgsql-general
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Anand Kumar, Karthik
<Karthik.AnandKumar@classmates.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We run postgres 9.3.3 on Centos 6.3, kernel 2.6.32-431.3.1. Every once in a
> while, we see postgres processes spinning on semop:

Are there a lot of tuples in the table that have been inserted or
updated by still-open transactions?  Such tuples can cause contention
when other processes need to check them for visibility.

You might want to upgrade and see if that fixes it, as there was a
partial fix in 9.3.4 for this (It fixed the problem where it occurred
in the planning done in the BIND phase when the unresolved tuples were
at the ends of an index).

>
> Running a perf on the process showed this:
>
> Samples: 33K of event 'cycles', Event count (approx.): 20693251070
>  26.16%  postmaster  postgres               [.] 0x0000000000188450
>  21.13%  postmaster  postgres               [.] hash_search_with_hash_value
>  10.47%  postmaster  postgres               [.] heap_page_prune_opt
>   4.21%  postmaster  postgres               [.] LWLockAcquire
>   3.71%  postmaster  postgres               [.] slot_getattr
>   1.97%  postmaster  postgres               [.] HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC

If it is what I am guessing at, then the top anonymous address is
probably coming from LWLockAcquire, and those are coming from
HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC.  I don't know how to verify that, though.

Cheers,

Jeff


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: David G Johnston
Date:
Subject: Re: Fast data, slow data
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Repeated semop calls