Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix: remove actor system for transactions, refactor iTX and tracing #5001

Draft
wants to merge 34 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

aqrln
Copy link
Member

@aqrln aqrln commented Sep 21, 2024

@aqrln aqrln added this to the 5.20.0 milestone Sep 21, 2024
@aqrln aqrln self-assigned this Sep 21, 2024
@aqrln aqrln changed the title fix: remove actor system for transactions fix: remove actor system for transactions, refactor iTX and tracing Sep 21, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Sep 21, 2024

WASM Query Engine file Size

Engine This PR Base branch Diff
Postgres 2.024MiB 2.063MiB -40.227KiB
Postgres (gzip) 813.273KiB 824.209KiB -10.936KiB
Mysql 1.991MiB 2.034MiB -44.113KiB
Mysql (gzip) 800.018KiB 812.033KiB -12.015KiB
Sqlite 1.886MiB 1.929MiB -43.603KiB
Sqlite (gzip) 759.700KiB 770.620KiB -10.920KiB

Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Sep 21, 2024

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #5001 will not alter performance

Comparing integration/itx-refactor (5f90dde) with main (155af62)

Summary

✅ 11 untouched benchmarks

@jkomyno jkomyno assigned jkomyno and unassigned jkomyno Sep 23, 2024
@jkomyno
Copy link
Contributor

jkomyno commented Sep 23, 2024

I'm waiting for #5003 before being able to release a new integration version.

@aqrln aqrln force-pushed the integration/itx-refactor branch 4 times, most recently from 21703fd to 0014c6b Compare September 26, 2024 14:47
@aqrln aqrln modified the milestones: 5.20.0, 5.21.0 Sep 26, 2024
@aqrln aqrln force-pushed the integration/itx-refactor branch 2 times, most recently from d9c03d9 to ff4016d Compare October 10, 2024 12:23
It was never acquired for reading, only for writing, so it was useless.
Mutex is much cheaper with less overhead.

Perhaps the outer RwLock should be replaced with a Mutex as well,
because, even though it is acquired for both reading and writing, it is
held for a very short time by design so the overhead of RwLock is likely
more expensive than the benefit of allowing multiple readers. RwLock is
more useful when the lock is held for a long time.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment