Horton

Re: scalability bottlenecks with (many) partitions (and more)

Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>

View thread
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Jakub Wartak <jakub.wartak@enterprisedb.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-03-03T20:31:42Z
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. Make FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_BACKEND look like a function

  2. Fix asserts in fast-path locking code

  3. Increase the number of fast-path lock slots


On 3/3/25 19:10, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2024-09-21 20:33:49 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> I've finally pushed this, after many rounds of careful testing to ensure
>> no regressions, and polishing.
> 
> One minor nit: I don't like that FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_BACKEND is now non-constant
> while looking like a constant:
> 
> #define		FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_BACKEND	(FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_GROUP * FastPathLockGroupsPerBackend)
> 
> I don't think it's a good idea to have non-function-like #defines that
> reference variables that can change from run to run.
> 

Fair point, although it can't change "run to run" - not without a
restart. It's not a proper constant, of course, but it seemed close
enough. Yes, it might confuse people into thinking it's a constant, or
is there some additional impact?

The one fix I can think of is making it look more like a function,
possibly just like this:

#define	FastPathLockSlotsPerBackend() \
  (FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_GROUP * FastPathLockGroupsPerBackend)

Or do you have another suggestion?


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra