Back in 2009, I proposed the idea of Lazy Snapshots. The idea was to put off generating a snapshot until we need one.
I have further ideas on this now. In general, this was a bad idea because... On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 10:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon, this concept is completely broken, as far as I can tell. > Consider this example: > > * You scan some row R1 with an ancient XMIN and no XMAX. > You decide it's visible. > * Transaction T2 deletes R1, inserts R2, and commits. > * You scan R2. Since it has a recent XMIN, you now take > a snapshot. The snapshot says T2 committed. So you > consider R2 is visible. This is inconsistent. In the > worst case R2 might be an update of R1. > > Even if the idea gave self-consistent results, I don't agree that it's > okay to not know when the statement's snapshot will be taken. Timing > of snapshots relative to other actions is critical for many reasons. ....which still I believe to be correct. However, that does not exclude a number of cases where the idea is still meaningful. 1. When we access all-visible data blocks. 2. When we perform a SELECT that accesses data using a unique index and we only examine a single row and that row older than our RecentXmin. 3. When we perform an UPDATE that accesses data using a unique index and we only examine a single row. In this case, we identify the row version and then re-evaluate it if it has been updated after our snapshot. It seems cheaper to just leave the snapshot open and find the latest committed version of the row and then update that, skipping all the PlanQual stuff. Those areas are very common *and* there is a strong correspondence with the workloads where cost of snapshots is a limiting factor. Does anybody see a reason to not investigate that further? Thanks, -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
