Re: PATCH: pgbench - merging transaction logs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fabien COELHO
Subject Re: PATCH: pgbench - merging transaction logs
Date
Msg-id alpine.DEB.2.10.1505021604170.31061@sto
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PATCH: pgbench - merging transaction logs  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
> It might be done in the other direction, though - the "writer" thread 
> might collect current results at the end of the interval.

Yep, you can indeed accumulate per thread and sum on the end of the 
interval, but a lock is still needed if you want exact figures.

ISTM that it is what is done for --progress, without even bothering to 
lock anything (even if transactions are fast and some inconsistency arise, 
this is just for showing how things are faring on stderr, so no big deal).

>> "fprintf" does a lot of processing, so it is the main issue.
>
> The question is whether the processing happens while holding the lock, 
> though. I don't think that's the case.

Alas I'm pretty nearly sure it is necessarily the case, there is no 
intermediate buffer in fprintf, the buffering is done trough the file 
handler so a lock must be acquire throughout format processing.

https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Streams-and-Threads.html#Streams-and-Threads

"The POSIX standard requires that by default the stream operations are 
atomic.  I.e., issuing two stream operations for the same stream in two 
threads at the same time will cause the operations to be executed as if 
they were issued sequentially. The buffer operations performed while 
reading or writing are protected from other uses of the same stream. To do 
this each stream has an internal lock object which has to be (implicitly) 
acquired before any work can be done. "

-- 
Fabien.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: parallel mode and parallel contexts
Next
From: Joe Wildish
Date:
Subject: Re: Implementing SQL ASSERTION