On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> I'm implementing this patch but I need to resolve the problem
>> regarding lock for extension by multiple parallel workers.
>> In parallel vacuum, multiple workers could try to acquire the
>> exclusive lock for extension on same relation.
>> Since acquiring the exclusive lock for extension by multiple workers
>> is regarded as locking from same locking group, multiple workers
>> extend fsm or vm at the same time and end up with error.
>> I thought that it might be involved with parallel update operation, so
>> I'd like to discuss about this in advance.
> Hmm, yeah.  This is one of the reasons why parallel queries currently
> need to be entirely read-only.  I think there's a decent argument that
> the relation extension lock mechanism should be entirely redesigned:
> the current system is neither particularly fast nor particularly
> elegant, and some of the services that the heavyweight lock manager
> provides, such as deadlock detection, are not relevant for relation
> extension locks.  I'm not sure if we should try to fix that right away
> or come up with some special-purpose hack for vacuum, such as having
> backends use condition variables to take turns calling
> visibilitymap_set().

Yeah, I don't have a good solution for this problem so far.
We might need to improve group locking mechanism for the updating
operation or came up with another approach to resolve this problem.
For example, one possible idea is that the launcher process allocates
vm and fsm enough in advance in order to avoid extending fork relation
by parallel workers, but it's not resolve fundamental problem.


Masahiko Sawada
NTT Open Source Software Center

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to