Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Date: 2010-04-27 18:53:16
Message-ID: 21841.1272394396@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hmm ... there's another point here, which is that the array size creates
a hard maximum on the number of entries, whereas the hash table was a
bit more forgiving. What is the proof that the array won't overflow?
The fact that the equivalent data structure on the master can't hold
more than this many entries doesn't seem to me to prove that, because
we will add intermediate not-observed XIDs to the array.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2010-04-27 19:00:04 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-04-27 18:32:24 Re: Differential backup