Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Dan Ports" <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)endpoint(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation
Date: 2011-10-10 21:10:18
Message-ID: 4E9318EA0200002500041D1D@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> wrote:

> I spent some time thinking about this a while back, but didn't
> have time to get very far. The problem isn't contention in the
> predicate lock manager (which is partitioned) but the single lock
> protecting the active SerializableXact state.
>
> It would probably help things a great deal if we could make that
> lock more fine-grained. However, it's tricky to do this without
> deadlocking because the serialization failure checks need to
> examine a node's neighbors in the dependency graph.

Did you ever see much contention on
SerializablePredicateLockListLock, or was it just
SerializableXactHashLock? I think the former might be able to use
the non-blocking techniques, but I fear the main issue is with the
latter, which seems like a harder problem.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2011-10-10 21:23:25 Re: SET variable - Permission issues
Previous Message Dan Ports 2011-10-10 21:00:00 Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation