Re: heavily contended lwlocks with long wait queues scale badly
Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org>
From: "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>,
pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
Yura Sokolov <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>
Date: 2024-01-11T14:47:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 1/10/24 10:45 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 09:17:47PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote: >> Now that commit a4adc31 has had some time to bake and concerns about >> unintended consequences may have abated, I wanted to revive this >> back-patching discussion. I see a few possibly-related reports [0] [1] >> [2], and I'm now seeing this in the field, too. While it is debatable >> whether this is a bug, it's a quite nasty issue for users, and it's both >> difficult to detect and difficult to work around. > > +1, I've seen this becoming a PITA for a few things. Knowing that the > size of PGPROC does not change at all, I would be in favor for a > backpatch, especially since it's been in the tree for more than 1 > year, and even more knowing that we have 16 released with this stuff > in. I have similar data sources to Nathan/Michael and I'm trying to avoid piling on, but one case that's interesting occurred after a major version upgrade from PG10 to PG14 on a database supporting a very active/highly concurrent workload. On inspection, it seems like backpatching would help this particularly case. With 10/11 EOL, I do wonder if we'll see more of these reports on upgrade to < PG16. (I was in favor of backpatching prior; opinion is unchanged). Thanks, Jonathan
Commits
-
lwlock: Fix quadratic behavior with very long wait lists
- 81038228582a 12.18 landed
- dc9d424cf0cd 13.14 landed
- 5f6ec27a6477 14.11 landed
- f374fb4aab3e 15.6 landed
- a4adc31f6902 16.0 landed