Horton

Re: Reducing overhead of frequent table locks

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Alexey Klyukin <alexk@commandprompt.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-05-25T14:35:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Fix possible "tuple concurrently updated" error in ALTER TABLE.

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> Design seemed relatively easy from there: put local lock table in
>>> shared memory for all procs. We then have a use_strong_lock at proc
>>> and at transaction level. Anybody that wants a strong lock first sets
>>> use_strong_lock at proc and transaction level, then copies all local
>>> lock data into shared lock table,

>> I'm not following this...

> Which bit aren't you following? It's a design outline for how to
> implement, deliberately brief to allow a discussion of design
> alternatives.

What I'm not following is how moving the local lock table into shared
memory can possibly be a good idea.  The reason we invented the local
lock table in the first place (we didn't use to have one) is so that a
process could do some manipulations without touching shared memory.
(Notably, it is currently nearly free, and certainly lock-free, to
re-request a lock type you already hold.  This is not an infrequent
case.)  That advantage will go away if you do this.

			regards, tom lane