Re: SSI patch version 8

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, "john(dot)okite(at)gmail(dot)org" <john(dot)okite(at)gmail(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, anssi(dot)kaariainen(at)thl(dot)fi
Subject: Re: SSI patch version 8
Date: 2011-01-13 15:02:21
Message-ID: 4D2F13FD.3070009@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 13.01.2011 16:51, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Right. As each tuple is read we need to ensure that there is a
> predicate lock to cover it. Since finer-grained locks can be
> combined into coarser-grained locks we need to start with the fine
> grained and move toward checking the coarser grains, to avoid
> missing a lock during promotion. So for each tuple we calculate a
> hash, find a partition, lock it, and lookup the tuple as a lock
> target. When that's not found we do the same thing for the page.
> When that's not found we do the same thing for the relation.
>
> But we acquired a relation lock up front, when we determined that
> this would be a heap scan, so we could short-circuit this whole
> thing if within the heapgettup_pagemode function we could determine
> that this was a scan of the whole relation.

That sounds simple enough. Add a boolean field to HeapScanDesc,
"rs_relpredicatelocked", and set it when you acquire the relation lock.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-01-13 15:39:30 Re: SSI patch version 8
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2011-01-13 15:02:12 Re: SSI patch version 8