From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Removing "magic" oids
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:58:55 -0700
Message-ID: <20190720195855.GC1865623@rfd.leadboat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190720195634.qgomnrssru7iw74y@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20180930034810.ywp2c7awz7opzcfr@alap3.anarazel.de>
<20181114080152.xkk6coduvfrh4ntr@alap3.anarazel.de>
<20181115045728.GA1121738@rfd.leadboat.com>
<20181115050241.exereob7wk3xxewj@alap3.anarazel.de>
<20181120092004.f3j2znfodallkksn@alap3.anarazel.de>
<20190707170035.GA1485546@rfd.leadboat.com>
<20190719171257.urgz76ob753ygxmd@alap3.anarazel.de>
<20190720182152.GB1865623@rfd.leadboat.com>
<20190720195634.qgomnrssru7iw74y@alap3.anarazel.de>
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:56:34PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-07-20 11:21:52 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 10:12:57AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2019-07-07 10:00:35 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > > +# Test concurrent OID generation via pg_enum_oid_index. This indirectly
> > > > +# exercises LWLock and spinlock concurrency.
> > > > +my $labels = join ',', map { "'l$_'" } 1 .. 1000;
> > > > pgbench(
> > > > '--no-vacuum --client=5 --protocol=prepared --transactions=25',
> > > > 0,
> > > > [qr{processed: 125/125}],
> > > > [qr{^$}],
> > > > - 'concurrent insert workload',
> > > > + 'concurrent OID generation',
> > > > {
> > > > '001_pgbench_concurrent_insert' =>
> > > > - 'INSERT INTO insert_tbl SELECT FROM generate_series(1,1000);'
> > > > + "CREATE TYPE pg_temp.e AS ENUM ($labels); DROP TYPE pg_temp.e;"
> > > > });
> > >
> > > Hm, perhaps we should just do something stupid an insert into a catalog
> > > table, determining the oid to insert with pg_nextoid? That ought to be a
> > > lot faster and thus more "stress testing" than going through a full
> > > blown DDL statement? But perhaps that's just too ugly.
> >
> > I expect the pg_nextoid strategy could have sufficed. The ENUM strategy
> > wastes some time parsing 1000 label names, discarding odd-numbered OIDs, and
> > dropping the type. The pg_nextoid strategy wastes time by performing the
> > insertion loop in the executor instead of dedicated C code of
> > EnumValuesCreate(). Hard to say how to weight those factors.
>
> Fair enough. Are you planning to commit your changes?
https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=8a0cbb88524e8b6121597285b811640ee...
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: noah@leadboat.com, andres@anarazel.de
Subject: Re: [RFC] Removing "magic" oids
In-Reply-To: <20190720195855.GC1865623@rfd.leadboat.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox