Hannu Krosing <ha...@krosing.net> writes:
> So the basic design could be "a sparse snapshot", consisting of 'xmin,
> xmax, running_txids[numbackends] where each backend manages its own slot
> in running_txids - sets a txid when aquiring one and nulls it at commit,
> possibly advancing xmin if xmin==mytxid.
How is that different from what we're doing now? Basically, what you're
describing is pulling the xids out of the ProcArray and moving them into
a separate data structure. That could be a win I guess if non-snapshot-
related reasons to take ProcArrayLock represent enough of the contention
to be worth separating out, but I suspect they don't. In particular,
the data structure you describe above *cannot* be run lock-free, because
it doesn't provide any consistency guarantees without a lock. You need
everyone to have the same ideas about commit order, and random backends
independently changing array elements without locks won't guarantee
that.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
