Re: SLRUs in the main buffer pool, redux

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
To: Shawn Debnath <clocksweep(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: SLRUs in the main buffer pool, redux
Date: 2023-02-27 13:36:30
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 27/02/2023 15:31, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 20/01/2023 19:00, Shawn Debnath wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 11:54:36AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> Oh I just saw that you had a comment about that in the patch and had hacked
>>> around it. Anyway, calling ResourceOwnerEnlargeBuffers() might be a
>>> solution. Or switch to a separate "CriticalResourceOwner" that's guaranteed
>>> to have enough pre-allocated space, before entering the critical section.
>> Wanted to bump up this thread. Rishu in my team posted a patch in the other
>> SLRU thread [1] with the latest updates and fixes and looks like performance
>> numbers do not show any regression. This change is currently in the
>> January commitfest [2] as well. Any feedback would be appreciated!
> Here's a rebased set of patches.
> The second patch is failing the pg_upgrade tests. Before I dig into
> that, I'd love to get some feedback on this general approach.

Forgot to include the new "slrulist.h" file in the previous patch, fixed

- Heikki

Attachment Content-Type Size
v3-0001-Have-separate-SMmgrRelation-per-fork-rename-it-to.patch text/x-patch 165.4 KB
v3-0002-WIP-SLRUs.patch text/x-patch 148.6 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bharath Rupireddy 2023-02-27 13:48:14 Re: libpq: PQgetCopyData() and allocation overhead
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2023-02-27 13:36:12 Re: meson vs make: missing/inconsistent ENV