Horton

RE: Speed up transaction completion faster after many relations are accessed in a transaction

Tsunakawa, Takayuki <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: 'Peter Eisentraut' <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, "Imai, Yoshikazu" <imai.yoshikazu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, "'Simon Riggs'" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>, "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-03-19T07:53:27Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

Hi Peter, Imai-san,

From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com]
> Your changes in LOCALLOCK still refer to PGPROC, from your first version
> of the patch.
> 
> I think the reordering of struct members could be done as a separate
> preliminary patch.
> 
> Some more documentation in the comment before dlist_head LocalLocks to
> explain this whole mechanism would be nice.

Fixed.


> You posted a link to some performance numbers, but I didn't see the test
> setup explained there.  I'd like to get some more information on this
> impact of this.  Is there an effect with 100 tables, or do you need 100000?

Imai-san, can you tell us the test setup?


Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa

Commits

  1. Reorder LOCALLOCK structure members to compact the size

  2. Be more careful to not lose sync in the FE/BE protocol.