Re: Catalog Access (was: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Concurrency problem
On 4/26/06 5:42 PM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, this is probably the best workaround for now. I think we should > look at making it fully concurrent-safe per upthread comments, but that > won't be happening in existing release branches. I changed the index build script such that for each table it builds one index by itself, then builds the remaining indexes in parallel. This appears to be stable. I made several runs with no errors. I've got some more testing to do, then I'll try my big run. Thanks Wes ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: Catalog Access (was: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Concurrency problem
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 07:13:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > What about not updating if the tuplecount is within X percent? Would > > that be safe enough to back-port? > > Even if you got agreement that it was a good idea (I don't think so > myself), it wouldn't help Wes, at least not for values of X smaller > than 100. Presumably, that first CREATE INDEX is trying to update > reltuples from zero to reality. It may be, but an ANALYZE would eliminate that need and be far faster than waiting on one entire CREATE INDEX. I'm thinking that even being of by as much as 5% won't matter to the planner, and I can't think of any possible reason to need an exact tuplecount in pg_class... > Also, the first CREATE INDEX has to set relhasindex = true, and that's > not fuzzy at all. Oh, will each index build try and do that? Would changing that be non-invasive enough to backpatch (I'm guessing it's just an added conditional...) -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: Catalog Access (was: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Concurrency problem
On 4/26/06 5:34 PM, "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Try running a first index build by itself and then running them in > parallel. Hopefully once pg_class has an exact tuple count the > conflicting update won't happen. If you actually have an exact tuple > count you could also try updating pg_class manually beforehand, but > that's not exactly a supported option... I thought about that. It would work well for the table with 3 indexes (1/2) either way, but would be an extra pass on the one with 4 (1/2/1 instead of 2/2). > Another possibility would be to patch the code so that if the tuplecount > found by CREATE INDEX is within X percent of what's already in pg_class > it doesn't do the update. Since there's already code to check to see if > the count is an exact match, this patch should be pretty simple, and the > community might well accept it into the code as well. I don't think that would help here. I assume after the COPY, the tuple count is zero, and after the first index build, it is exact. Dumb question... Since COPY has to lock the table, why doesn't it take the current count in pg_class and increment it by the number of rows inserted? If you're doing a clean load of a table, that would result in an exact count. What about your idea of retrying the request if it detects a conflict? > BTW, why are you limiting yourself to 2 indexes at once? I'd expect that > for a table larger than memory you'd be better off building all the > indexes at once so that everything runs off a single sequential scan. I don't know enough about the index build process. My presumption was that while you might get a gain during the read process, the head contention during the sort/write process would be a killer. I don't have enough spindles (yet) to separate out the different indexes. I think you'd only want to do one table at a time to avoid head contention during the read process. Wouldn't this tend to exacerbate the current problem, too? In this specific case, I guess I could do 1,2 and 1,3 parallel builds (for the 3 index/4 index tables). Right now I'm running with rather restricted hardware (1GB memory, two 2-disk RAID 0's and a single disk). If the pilot proves what I think is possible, and I can get real hardware (i.e. an intelligent caching array and some serious memory), things change a bit. Wes ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: Catalog Access (was: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Concurrency problem
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What about not updating if the tuplecount is within X percent? Would > that be safe enough to back-port? Even if you got agreement that it was a good idea (I don't think so myself), it wouldn't help Wes, at least not for values of X smaller than 100. Presumably, that first CREATE INDEX is trying to update reltuples from zero to reality. Also, the first CREATE INDEX has to set relhasindex = true, and that's not fuzzy at all. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: Catalog Access (was: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Concurrency problem
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 06:42:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Try running a first index build by itself and then running them in > > parallel. > > Yeah, this is probably the best workaround for now. I think we should > look at making it fully concurrent-safe per upthread comments, but that > won't be happening in existing release branches. > > Also, the only case where it's a problem is if the first two index > builds finish at almost exactly the same time. It might be possible to > overlap the first two index builds with reasonable safety so long as you > choose indexes with very different sorting costs (eg, integer vs text > columns, different numbers of columns, etc). What about not updating if the tuplecount is within X percent? Would that be safe enough to back-port? I've been trying to think of a reason why disabling the current behavior of CREATE INDEX forcing reltuples to be 100% accurate but I can't think of one... -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: Catalog Access (was: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Concurrency problem
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Try running a first index build by itself and then running them in > parallel. Yeah, this is probably the best workaround for now. I think we should look at making it fully concurrent-safe per upthread comments, but that won't be happening in existing release branches. Also, the only case where it's a problem is if the first two index builds finish at almost exactly the same time. It might be possible to overlap the first two index builds with reasonable safety so long as you choose indexes with very different sorting costs (eg, integer vs text columns, different numbers of columns, etc). regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: Catalog Access (was: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Concurrency problem
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 05:24:27PM -0500, Wes wrote: > On 4/25/06 12:24 PM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm inclined to think that the right solution is to fix UpdateStats and > > setRelhasindex so that they don't use simple_heap_update, but call > > heap_update directly and cope with HeapTupleUpdated (by looping around > > and trying the update from scratch). > > Is there a verdict on what can/should/will be done for this? As far as I > can tell from all this, there appears to be no workaround (even kludgy) > other than to not build indexes in parallel - not an attractive option. > > If I'm only building two indexes simultaneously, what would happen if I > tried to lock pg_class in the shorter index build transaction? Besides > seeming like a bad idea... Try running a first index build by itself and then running them in parallel. Hopefully once pg_class has an exact tuple count the conflicting update won't happen. If you actually have an exact tuple count you could also try updating pg_class manually beforehand, but that's not exactly a supported option... Another possibility would be to patch the code so that if the tuplecount found by CREATE INDEX is within X percent of what's already in pg_class it doesn't do the update. Since there's already code to check to see if the count is an exact match, this patch should be pretty simple, and the community might well accept it into the code as well. BTW, why are you limiting yourself to 2 indexes at once? I'd expect that for a table larger than memory you'd be better off building all the indexes at once so that everything runs off a single sequential scan. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: Catalog Access (was: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Concurrency problem
On 4/25/06 12:24 PM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm inclined to think that the right solution is to fix UpdateStats and > setRelhasindex so that they don't use simple_heap_update, but call > heap_update directly and cope with HeapTupleUpdated (by looping around > and trying the update from scratch). Is there a verdict on what can/should/will be done for this? As far as I can tell from all this, there appears to be no workaround (even kludgy) other than to not build indexes in parallel - not an attractive option. If I'm only building two indexes simultaneously, what would happen if I tried to lock pg_class in the shorter index build transaction? Besides seeming like a bad idea... Wes ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: Catalog Access (was: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Concurrency problem
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hannu Krosing wrote: >> Would this take effect even inside a single command ? in other words, if >> it were possible that an index appeared in middle of a big update, would >> the tuples updated after the index becomes visible be also added to the >> index ? > This can't happen, because an UPDATE to a table requires acquiring a > lock (RowExclusiveLock) which conflicts with a lock taken by the CREATE > INDEX (ShareLock). Right. By and large, schema-changing operations take AccessExclusive lock on the table they are changing, which guarantees (a) no concurrent operation is is touching the table, and (b) by the time the lock is released, the schema-changing command is already committed and so its catalog changes appear valid to any subsequent transactions touching the table, since they look at the catalogs with SnapshotNow rules. CREATE INDEX is the only schema-changing op that I can think of offhand that takes a non-exclusive lock, and so its little problem with two concurrent operations on the same table is unique. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: Catalog Access (was: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Concurrency problem
Hannu Krosing wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-04-25 kell 13:58, kirjutas Tom Lane: > > Martijn van Oosterhout writes: > > > I think the basic problem is that DDL can't really work within a > > > transaction. If I do an ALTER TABLE, some of these changes need to show > > > up to concurrent transactions (maybe creating a unique index?). > > > > The point is that DDL can't be MVCC. If for instance you add an index > > to a table, once you commit every other transaction must *immediately* > > start updating that index when they modify the table. > > How is it done in a way that all other backends see it, but only after > commit ? > > Is there some secret transaction isolation mode for DDL? Sort of. Catalog accesses normally use SnapshotNow, instead of ActiveSnapshot which is normally used by regular access. The use of ActiveSnapshot is what makes a transaction read committed or serializable; in a serializable transaction, ActiveSnapshot will point to SerializableSnapshot, while on a read committed transaction, ActiveSnapshot will point to a snapshot acquired at the beggining of the command by GetSnapshotData. Have a look at GetTransactionSnapshot() in tqual.c. (The trick is grokking the differences among the various HeapTupleSatisfies routines.) > Would this take effect even inside a single command ? in other words, if > it were possible that an index appeared in middle of a big update, would > the tuples updated after the index becomes visible be also added to the > index ? This can't happen, because an UPDATE to a table requires acquiring a lock (RowExclusiveLock) which conflicts with a lock taken by the CREATE INDEX (ShareLock). You can see the conflict table in lock.c, the LockConflicts array. -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: Catalog Access (was: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Concurrency problem
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-04-25 kell 13:58, kirjutas Tom Lane: > Martijn van Oosterhout writes: > > I think the basic problem is that DDL can't really work within a > > transaction. If I do an ALTER TABLE, some of these changes need to show > > up to concurrent transactions (maybe creating a unique index?). > > The point is that DDL can't be MVCC. If for instance you add an index > to a table, once you commit every other transaction must *immediately* > start updating that index when they modify the table. How is it done in a way that all other backends see it, but only after commit ? Is there some secret transaction isolation mode for DDL? Maybe something that fits between "read uncommitted" and "read committed" ? Or is it just that catalog access is always done in read-committed mode, even if transaction is in "serializable" ? Would this take effect even inside a single command ? in other words, if it were possible that an index appeared in middle of a big update, would the tuples updated after the index becomes visible be also added to the index ? The reason I ask, is that I'm still keen on implementin a CONCURRENT INDEX command, and I want to get as much background info as possible before diving in. > They can't use > the excuse of "not my problem because the catalog change postdates the > snapshot I'm using". The drop-index case is even worse, since a > transaction that believes the index is still present is likely to try > to access/update a disk file that's not there anymore. Adding/dropping > columns, constraints, triggers, etc all have hazards of the same ilk. at what point will an add/drop column become visible for parallel transactions ? can trigger/constraint appear magically inside a transaction ? so if I update 5 rows inside one serialisable trx, is it possible that a trigger added to the table after 2nd update will fire for last 3 updates ? btw, i don't think that a stored procedure (cached plans) will pick up something like added/changed default even after commit in both connections. > > I think it's like Tom says in that email, it could be done, but the > > cost/benefit ratio isn't very good... > > It's barely possible that we could make this happen, but it would be a > huge amount of work, and probably a huge amount of instability for a > very long time until we'd gotten all the corner cases sorted. I think > there are much more productive uses for our development effort. True. --- Hannu ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: Catalog Access (was: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Concurrency problem building indexes)
Martijn van Oosterhout writes: > I think the basic problem is that DDL can't really work within a > transaction. If I do an ALTER TABLE, some of these changes need to show > up to concurrent transactions (maybe creating a unique index?). The point is that DDL can't be MVCC. If for instance you add an index to a table, once you commit every other transaction must *immediately* start updating that index when they modify the table. They can't use the excuse of "not my problem because the catalog change postdates the snapshot I'm using". The drop-index case is even worse, since a transaction that believes the index is still present is likely to try to access/update a disk file that's not there anymore. Adding/dropping columns, constraints, triggers, etc all have hazards of the same ilk. > I think it's like Tom says in that email, it could be done, but the > cost/benefit ratio isn't very good... It's barely possible that we could make this happen, but it would be a huge amount of work, and probably a huge amount of instability for a very long time until we'd gotten all the corner cases sorted. I think there are much more productive uses for our development effort. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: Catalog Access (was: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Concurrency problem building indexes)
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 12:25:35PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > Is there anything in comments/docs/list archives about why catalog > access uses a bunch of 'magic' instead of treating catalog tables the > same as every other table? I realize that ultimately you have to > bootstrap somehow (kinda hard to read from pg_class if the info needed > to do so is in pg_class), but perhaps switching over to the regular > access methods after the system is up would be worth-while. I don't know if it's explicitly documented, but here's one mail that describes some of the issues: http://www.thelinuxreview.com/pgsql-hackers/2005-03/msg00840.php I think the basic problem is that DDL can't really work within a transaction. If I do an ALTER TABLE, some of these changes need to show up to concurrent transactions (maybe creating a unique index?). I think it's like Tom says in that email, it could be done, but the cost/benefit ratio isn't very good... Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to > litigate. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Catalog Access (was: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Concurrency problem building indexes)
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 12:48:04PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I'm late to this thread, but maybe we can make the process of storing > the new data in pg_class take a lock using LockObject() or something > like that to serialize the access to the pg_class row. The idea would > be that this lock doesn't conflict with a LockRelation(), but it would > of course conflict with itself so no two CREATE INDEXES can enter that > code section concurrently. Is there anything in comments/docs/list archives about why catalog access uses a bunch of 'magic' instead of treating catalog tables the same as every other table? I realize that ultimately you have to bootstrap somehow (kinda hard to read from pg_class if the info needed to do so is in pg_class), but perhaps switching over to the regular access methods after the system is up would be worth-while. Advantages: Allows for concurrent access (using MVCC) Potentially reduces locking requirements (if snapshots aren't required anymore, each backend should theoretically be able to rely on MVCC to get the right catalog info, though of course this depends on the actual operation) Should allow for much-sought-after triggers on the system catalogs But I'm sure this has come up in the past, I just can't find any info about why not to do this... -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
