Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Um ... you're supposing that only DDL uses SnapshotNow, which is >> wrong. I refer you to the parser, the planner, execution >> functions for arrays, records, enums, any sort of relcache >> reload, etc etc etc. Yes, some of that is masked by >> backend-internal caching, some of the time, but it's folly to >> just assume that there are no SnapshotNow scans during normal >> queries. > > Hmm. That's unfortunate, because it seems difficult to construct > a test case that will exercise every feature in the system. Would the result of IsMVCCSnapshot() change for these snapshots? If so, it might require work in the SSI code to avoid a performance hit there. In early profiling and stepping through execution I noticed that we had overhead in serializable transactions for the planner checks for the actual values at the beginning or end of an index. This went away when we avoided SSI work for reads using a non-MVCC snapshot. If we're going to start using MVCC snapshots for such things, we need some other way to avoid unnecessary work in this area (and possibly others). At a minimum, some comparative benchmarks at the serializable isolation level would be in order when considering a patch like this. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
