Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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 22:08:29
Message-ID: 25104.1272406109@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 17:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think we should just lose that test, as well as the variable.

> Yes, though it looks like it is still necessary in creating a valid
> initial state because otherwise we may have xids in KnownAssigned array
> that are already complete.

Huh?  How is a filter as coarse as an oldest-running-XID filter going
to prevent that?  And aren't we initializing from trustworthy data in
ProcArrayApplyRecoveryInfo, anyway?

I still say it's useless.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2010-04-27 22:32:29
Subject: Schema.Table.Col resolution seems broken in Alpha5
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-04-27 21:45:53
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group