On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:56:34PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-07-20 11:21:52 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 10:12:57AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2019-07-07 10:00:35 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > > +# Test concurrent OID generation via pg_enum_oid_index. This
> > > > indirectly
> > > > +# exercises LWLock and spinlock concurrency.
> > > > +my $labels = join ',', map { "'l$_'" } 1 .. 1000;
> > > > pgbench(
> > > > '--no-vacuum --client=5 --protocol=prepared --transactions=25',
> > > > 0,
> > > > [qr{processed: 125/125}],
> > > > [qr{^$}],
> > > > - 'concurrent insert workload',
> > > > + 'concurrent OID generation',
> > > > {
> > > > '001_pgbench_concurrent_insert' =>
> > > > - 'INSERT INTO insert_tbl SELECT FROM
> > > > generate_series(1,1000);'
> > > > + "CREATE TYPE pg_temp.e AS ENUM ($labels); DROP TYPE
> > > > pg_temp.e;"
> > > > });
> > >
> > > Hm, perhaps we should just do something stupid an insert into a catalog
> > > table, determining the oid to insert with pg_nextoid? That ought to be a
> > > lot faster and thus more "stress testing" than going through a full
> > > blown DDL statement? But perhaps that's just too ugly.
> >
> > I expect the pg_nextoid strategy could have sufficed. The ENUM strategy
> > wastes some time parsing 1000 label names, discarding odd-numbered OIDs, and
> > dropping the type. The pg_nextoid strategy wastes time by performing the
> > insertion loop in the executor instead of dedicated C code of
> > EnumValuesCreate(). Hard to say how to weight those factors.
>
> Fair enough. Are you planning to commit your changes?
https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=8a0cbb88524e8b6121597285b811640ee793b3e8
