Horton

Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-04-26T19:25:22Z
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. Allow page lock to conflict among parallel group members.

  2. Allow relation extension lock to conflict among parallel group members.

  3. Add assert to ensure that page locks don't participate in deadlock cycle.

  4. Assert that we don't acquire a heavyweight lock on another object after

  5. Fix unsafe usage of strerror(errno) within ereport().

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> I think the real question is whether the scenario is common enough to
>> worry about.  In practice, you'd have to be extremely unlucky to be
>> doing many bulk loads at the same time that all happened to hash to
>> the same bucket.
>
> With a bunch of parallel bulkloads into partitioned tables that really
> doesn't seem that unlikely?

It increases the likelihood of collisions, but probably decreases the
number of cases where the contention gets really bad.

For example, suppose each table has 100 partitions and you are
bulk-loading 10 of them at a time.  It's virtually certain that you
will have some collisions, but the amount of contention within each
bucket will remain fairly low because each backend spends only 1% of
its time in the bucket corresponding to any given partition.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company