On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 18.06.2012 13:59, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> >> On 10.06.2012 23:39, Jeff Janes wrote: >> I found the interface between resowner.c and lock.c a bit confusing. >> resowner.c would sometimes call LockReassignCurrentOwner() to reassign >> all the locks, and sometimes it would call LockReassignCurrentOwner() on >> each individual lock, with the net effect that's the same as calling >> LockReleaseCurrentOwner(). And it doesn't seem right for >> ResourceOwnerRemember/ForgetLock to have to accept a NULL owner. >> >> I rearranged that so that there's just a single >> LockReassignCurrentOwner() function, like before this patch. But it >> takes as an optional argument a list of locks held by the current >> resource owner. If the caller knows it, it can pass them to make the >> call faster, but if it doesn't it can just pass NULL and the function >> will traverse the hash table the old-fashioned way. I think that's a >> better API.
Thank you, that does look much cleaner. >> >> Please take a look to see if I broke something. > > > I hear no complaints, so committed. Thanks! > Thanks. Just for the record, I'd previously promised some long running performance tests with my proposed -P option for pgbench, which are now done and showed a 0.2% degradation with my patch. With enough data collected, that difference is statistically significant, but probably not practically significant. It was with my original version, but I can't imagine your version being different in performance. Also, this test is very pessimistic. Since the primary key look-up in the pl/pgSQL look up runs in a portal each time, it pushes the locks to the parent each time. If the lookup was instead running as the inner side of a nested loop, it would not do the reassign on each loop. Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers