From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:06:56 +0000
Message-ID: <1237417616.3953.318.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15144.1237408005@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <alpine.GSO.2.01.0903121613270.1925@westnet.com>
<C5DED7A7.33B2%scott@richrelevance.com>
<603c8f070903121829r31cf1472ha9876e5c480a542e@mail.gmail.com>
<12292.1236964604@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<49BB699D.1070809@enterprisedb.com>
<alpine.DEB.2.00.0903161543590.21772@aragorn.flymine.org>
<1237362833.3953.186.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
<15144.1237408005@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 16:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 16:26 +0000, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
> >> One possibility would be for the locks to alternate between exclusive
> >> and
> >> shared - that is:
> >>
> >> 1. Take a snapshot of all shared waits, and grant them all -
> >> thundering
> >> herd style.
> >> 2. Wait until ALL of them have finished, granting no more.
> >> 3. Take a snapshot of all exclusive waits, and grant them all, one by
> >> one.
> >> 4. Wait until all of them have been finished, granting no more.
> >> 5. Back to (1)
>
> > I agree with that, apart from the "granting no more" bit.
>
> > Currently we queue up exclusive locks, but there is no need to since for
> > ProcArrayLock commits are all changing different data.
>
> > The most useful behaviour is just to have two modes:
> > * exclusive-lock held - all other x locks welcome, s locks queue
> > * shared-lock held - all other s locks welcome, x locks queue
>
> My goodness, it seems people have forgotten about the "lightweight"
> part of the LWLock design.
"Lightweight" is only useful if it fits purpose. If the LWlock design
doesn't fit all cases, especially with critical lock types, then we can
have special cases. We have both spinlocks and LWlocks, plus we split
hash tables into multiple lock partitions. If we have 3 types of
lightweight locking, why not consider having 4?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: simon@2ndQuadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, matthew@flymine.org
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
In-Reply-To: <1237417616.3953.318.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
* 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