Martijn van Oosterhout <klep...@gmail.com> writes:
> There are a number of possible improvements here:
> 1. Do what sinval does and separate the reader and writer locks so
> they can't block each other. This is the ultimate solution, but it's a
> significant refactor and it's not clear that's actually worthwhile
> here. This would almost be adopting the sinvaladt structure wholesale.
I agree that that's probably more ambitious than is warranted.
> 2. Add a field to AsyncQueueEntry which points to the next listening
> backend. This would allow the loops over all listening backends to
> complete much faster, especially in the normal case where there are
> not many listeners relative to the number of backends. The downside is
> this requires an exclusive lock to remove listeners, but that doesn't
> seem a big problem.
I don't understand how that would work? The sending backend doesn't
know what the "next listening backend" is. Having to scan the whole
queue when a listener unlistens seems pretty awful too, especially
if you need exclusive lock while doing so.
> 3. The other idea from sinval where you only wake up one worker at a
> time is a good one as you point out. This seems quite doable, however,
> it seems wasteful to try and wake everyone up the moment we switch to
> a new page. The longer you delay the lower the chance you need to wake
> anyone at all because they've because they'll have caught up by
> themselves. A single SLRU page can hold hundreds, or even thousands of
> messages.
Not entirely following your comment here either. The point of the change
is exactly that we'd wake up only one backend at a time (and only the
furthest-behind one, so that anyone who catches up of their own accord
stops being a factor). Also, "hundreds or thousands" seems
over-optimistic given that the minimum size of AsyncQueueEntry is 20
bytes --- in practice it'll be more because people don't use empty
strings as notify channel names. I think a few hundred messages per
page is the upper limit, and it could be a lot less.
> Do 2 & 3 seem like a good direction to go? I can probably work something up.
I'm on board with 3, obviously. Not following what you have in mind
for 2.
regards, tom lane
