Re: Notes about Pl/PgSQL assignment performance - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrey Zhidenkov
Subject Re: Notes about Pl/PgSQL assignment performance
Date
Msg-id CAN=gQ4B+Lkx2hVs9qY9q7jkjJv8gMJ04GO7FYTOHraxTy-5r9w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Notes about Pl/PgSQL assignment performance  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: Notes about Pl/PgSQL assignment performance
Re: Notes about Pl/PgSQL assignment performance
List pgsql-hackers
I've digged into the source code a little bit and found that chain:

PLPGSQL_STMT_ASSIGN -> exec_stmt_assign() -> exec_assign_expr() -> exec_eval_expr() -> exec_run_select() -> SPI_execute_plan_with_paramlist() -> _SPI_execute_plan() which finnaly calls PushActiveSnapshot() and PopActiveSnapshot() wich just do memory context allocations and use malloc() to copy snaphot.

Maybe I have missed something?

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
Andrey Zhidenkov wrote:
> When I run this test in 2 threads I expect that running time will be the
> same, because PostgreSQL will fork process for the second connection and
> this process will be served by a separate CPU core because I have more than
> 2 cores.
> Yes, IMMUTABLE flag helps, but I think It's just because Postgres actually
> executes procedure only once.

Just a guess without actually looking at the WaitEvents (which you
should do) is that this is blocking on snapshot acquisition or something
like that.

--
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



--
С уважением, Андрей Жиденков.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors