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

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>

From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.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: 2017-12-13T08:57:42Z
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 Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2017-12-13 16:02:45 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> When we add extra blocks on a relation do we access to the disk? I
>> guess we just call lseek and write and don't access to the disk. If so
>> the performance degradation regression might not be much.
>
> Usually changes in the file size require the filesystem to perform
> metadata operations, which in turn requires journaling on most
> FSs. Which'll often result in synchronous disk writes.
>

Thank you. I understood the reason why this measurement should use two
different filesystems.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center