This patch needs a rebase, as 06d7fd6e bumped the version to 1.2.
On 09/02/2016 01:38 PM, Ivan Kartyshov wrote:
On 09/02/2016 06:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I wonder whether we ought to just switch from the consistent method to
the semiconsistent method and call it good. I agree with you that
taking every buffer partition lock simultaneously seems like too much
locking. And in the future if we replace the buffer mapping hash with
something that is lock-free or close to it, then we wouldn't even have
buffer partition locks any more, and probably no way at all to get an
entirely consistent snapshot.
What do you think of this?
I fully agree with you that it would be preferred in the future to
replace the buffer mapping hash with some of lock-free algorithms.
In the question of replacing the consistent method I agree with you,
Andres Freund and Peter Geoghegan: the consistent method does not bring
any considerable benefits.
You might be right regarding the three different modes, but our DBAs
asked if we could preserve a legacy mode too, thus the choice.
On 09/02/2016 06:19 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> +1. I think, before long, we're going to have to switch away from having
> locks & partitions in the first place. So I don't see a problem relaxing
> this. It's not like that consistency really buys you anything... I'd
> even consider not using any locks.
If we will replace consistent method, then we should replace it with the
partially consistent method (called "nonconsistent") because:
1) it's based on fast spinlocks (it's not fully up to its name, though)
In other words, it does exactly the thing proposed up-thread, i.e.
locking only buffer headers.
What do you mean by fast spinlocks? And why aren't they up to the name?
2) it's *almost* the fastest one (the less time needed for execution of
method, the less data core will change and as a consequence the more
consistent snapshot will be)
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here? What do you mean by
"almost the fastest one"?
I'm a bit confused by the results you reported before, i.e. that
1) nonconsistent is 10% faster then consistent method
2) semiconsistent is 5-times slower then nonconsistent method
What does that mean? Are you refering to duration of the queries reading
data from pg_buffercache, or to impact on the other queries?
How can be semiconsistent 5x slower than nonconsistent? Wouldn't that
make it significantly slower than the consistent method?
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: