Marco,
You ask what an event is? An event can be: - input from a connection (usually a new query); - notification that I/O needed by a pending query has completed; - if we don't want a single query starve the server, an alarm of kind (I think this is a corner case, but still possible;) - something else I haven't thought about.
Sounds very much like a description of the preemption points that a user-space thread scheduler would use.
At any given moment, there are many pending queries. Most of them will be waiting for I/O to complete. That's how the server handles concurrent users.
In order to determine from where an event origins, say an I/O complete event, you need to associate some structure with the I/O operation. That structure defines the logical flow of all events for one particular session or query, and as such it's not far from a lightweigth thread. The only difference is that your "thread" resumes execution in a logical sense (from the event loop) rather than a physical program counter position. The resource consumption/performance would stay more or less the same.
(*) They're oriented to general purpose processes. Think of how CPU
usage affects relative priorities. In a DB context, there may be
other criteria of greater significance. Roughly speaking, the larger
the part of the data a single session holds locked, the sooner it should
be completed. The kernel has no knowledge of this. To the kernel,
"big" processes are those that are using a lot of CPU. And the policy is
to slow them down. To a DB, a "big" queries are those that force the most
serialization ("lock a lot"), and they should be completed as soon as
possible.
Criteria based prioritisation is very interesting but I think your model has some flaws:
- Since the kernel has no idea your process servers a lot of sessions _it_ will be considered a "big" process.
- If a process/thread will do lots of I/O waits (likely for a "big" query) it's unlikely that the kernel will consider it a CPU hog.
- Most big queries are read-only and hence, do not lock a lot of things.
- PostgreSQL uses MVCC which brings the concurrent lock problem down to a minimum, even for queries that are not read-only.
- Giving big queries a lot of resources is not the desired behavior in many cases.
- Your scheduler is confined to one CPU and cannot react to the system as a whole.
I think it is more important that the scheduler can balance _all_ sessions among _all_ available resources on the machine.
Regards, Thomas Hallgren
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
