From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
To: Brian Hurt <bhurt@janestcapital.com>
Subject: Re: RES: Priority to a mission critical transaction
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:47:00 -0800
Message-ID: <456DD5A4.7030309@cheapcomplexdevices.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <456DC19B.4020607@janestcapital.com>
References: <4939.1164740825@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<200611282344.kASNijt09203@momjian.us>
<456CE066.50803@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
<456D8A65.3080400@janestcapital.com>
<1164812624.9690.500.camel@archimedes>
<456DA476.4000606@janestcapital.com>
<456DB8C9.7020206@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
<456DC19B.4020607@janestcapital.com>
Brian Hurt wrote:
> Ron Mayer wrote:
>> Brian Hurt wrote:
>>> Mark Lewis wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:25 -0500, Brian Hurt wrote:
>>>>> But, especially given priority inheritance, is there any
>
> That second paper is interesting in that it says that STM solves the
> priority inversion problem. Basically the higher priority process
> forces the lower priority process to abort it's transaction and retry it.
>
> Is it possible to recast Postgres' use of locks to use STM instead?
If I read the CMU paper right (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bianca/icde04.pdf),
that's equivalent to what they call "preemptive abort scheduling"
and tested as well as priority inversion.
They did test this and compared it to priority inversion with
postgresql and found them about equivalent.
"Preemptive scheduling (P-LQ and P-CPU) attempts to eliminate the
wait excess for high-priority transactions by preempting low-priority
lock holders in the way of high-priority transactions. We find that
preemptive policies provide little benefit
...
TPC-C running on PostgreSQL ... Preemption (P-CPU) provides
no appreciable benefit over CPU-Prio-Inherit."
> Setting priorities would be a solution to a problem I haven't hit yet,
> but can see myself needing to deal with. Which is why I'm interested in
> this issue. If it's a case of "setting priorities can make things
> better, and doesn't make things worse" is great. If it's a case of
> "setting priorities can make things better, but occassionally makes
> things much worse" is a problem.
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: rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com, bhurt@janestcapital.com
Subject: Re: RES: Priority to a mission critical transaction
In-Reply-To: <456DD5A4.7030309@cheapcomplexdevices.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