Horton

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

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-02-14T08:20:02Z
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 Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:42 AM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 13:16, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 9:13 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > >
> > > I took a brief look through this patch.  I agree with the fundamental
> > > idea that we shouldn't need to use the heavyweight lock manager for
> > > relation extension, since deadlock is not a concern and no backend
> > > should ever need to hold more than one such lock at once.  But it feels
> > > to me like this particular solution is rather seriously overengineered.
> > > I would like to suggest that we do something similar to Robert Haas'
> > > excellent hack (daa7527af) for the !HAVE_SPINLOCK case in lmgr/spin.c,
> > > that is,
> > >
> > > * Create some predetermined number N of LWLocks for relation extension.
> > > * When we want to extend some relation R, choose one of those locks
> > >   (say, R's relfilenode number mod N) and lock it.
> > >
> >
> > I am imagining something on the lines of BufferIOLWLockArray (here it
> > will be RelExtLWLockArray).  The size (N) could MaxBackends or some
> > percentage of it (depending on testing) and indexing into an array
> > could be as suggested (R's relfilenode number mod N).
>
> I'm not sure it's good that the contention of LWLock slot depends on
> MaxBackends. Because it means that the more MaxBackends is larger, the
> less the LWLock slot conflicts, even if the same number of backends
> actually connecting. Normally we don't want to increase unnecessarily
> MaxBackends for security reasons. In the current patch we defined a
> fixed length of array for extension lock but I agree that we need to
> determine what approach is the best depending on testing.
>

I think MaxBackends will generally limit the number of different
relations that can simultaneously extend, but maybe tables with many
partitions might change the situation.  You are right that some tests
might suggest a good number, let Mahendra write a patch and then we
can test it.  Do you have any better idea?


-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com