| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
| Date: | 2012-01-03 18:14:59 |
| Message-ID: | 1325614296-sup-9131@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar ene 03 12:24:52 -0300 2012:
> I feel like the first thing we should be doing here is some
> benchmarking. If we change just the scans in dependency.c and then
> try the test case Tom suggested (dropping a schema containing a large
> number of functions), we can compare the patched code with master and
> get an idea of whether the performance is acceptable. If it is,
> changing everything else is a mostly mechanical process that we can
> simply grind through. If it's not, I'd rather learn that before we
> start grinding.
If there are many call sites, maybe it'd be a good idea to use a
semantic patcher tool such as Coccinelle instead of doing it one by one.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-03 18:24:41 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-01-03 18:13:46 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |