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 →
-
Allow page lock to conflict among parallel group members.
- 3ba59ccc896e 13.0 landed
-
Allow relation extension lock to conflict among parallel group members.
- 85f6b49c2c53 13.0 landed
-
Add assert to ensure that page locks don't participate in deadlock cycle.
- 72e78d831ab5 13.0 landed
-
Assert that we don't acquire a heavyweight lock on another object after
- 15ef6ff4b985 13.0 landed
-
Fix unsafe usage of strerror(errno) within ereport().
- 81256cd05f07 11.0 cited
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