From: | Hamid Akhtar <hamid(dot)akhtar(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: track_planning causing performance regression |
Date: | 2020-08-19 12:45:41 |
Message-ID: | 159784114193.7095.7438157679688812860.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation: not tested
Overall, the patch works fine. However, I have a few observations:
(1) Code Comments:
- The code comments should be added for the 2 new macros, in particular for PGSS_NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS. As you explained in your email, this may be used to limit the number of locks if a very large value for pgss_max is specified.
- From the code I inferred that the number of locks can in future be less than pgss_max (per your email where in future this macro could be used to limit the number of locks). I suggest to perhaps add some notes helping future changes in this code area.
(2) It seems like that "pgss->lock = &(pgss->base + pgss_max)->lock;" statement should not use pgss_max directly and instead use PGSS_NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS macro, as when a limit is imposed on number of locks, this statement will cause an overrun.
--
Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan)
URL : www.highgo.ca
ADDR: 10318 WHALLEY BLVD, Surrey, BC
CELL:+923335449950 EMAIL: mailto:hamid(dot)akhtar(at)highgo(dot)ca
SKYPE: engineeredvirus
The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2020-08-19 12:50:16 | Refactor pg_rewind code and make it work against a standby |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-08-19 12:41:03 | Re: SyncRepLock acquired exclusively in default configuration |