From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 572D12D171 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 15:15:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5lt5hqdRQjfs for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 15:15:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp43.i.mail.ru (smtp43.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.103]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id C92422D005 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 15:15:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] box: factor fiber_gc out of txn_commit References: From: Vladislav Shpilevoy Message-ID: <3f704071-73e8-5e06-ea1e-e39ac9ae88aa@tarantool.org> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 22:15:42 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: To: "n.pettik" , tarantool-patches@freelists.org Cc: Imeev Mergen On 30/10/2018 17:30, n.pettik wrote: > > >> On 29 Oct 2018, at 20:33, imeevma@tarantool.org wrote: >> >> Now txn_commit is judge, jury and executioner. It both >> commits or rollbacks data, and collects it calling fiber_gc, >> which destroys the region. > > Nit: both commits and rollbacks. > >> >> But SQL wants to use some transactional data after commit. It is >> autogenerated identifiers - a list of sequence values generated >> for autoincrement columns and explicit sequence:next() calls. >> >> It is possible to store the list on malloced mem inside Vdbe, but >> it complicates deallocation. > > What is the problem with deallocation? AFAIU it is enough to > simply iterate over the list and release each element - not big deal. > > If you want to use region, mb it is worth to store separate region > specially for VDBE? We already have it in parser, so what prevents > us for adding the same thing to VDBE? I guess we can store many > things there, not only list of ids. I understand that parser in its turn > has nothing in common (at least it should, except for analyze machinery) > with transaction routines, so separate region is likely to be more > reasonable for parser, but anyway... Vdbe can yield. In parser we use region only because it takes and frees slabs without yields. >