| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_sequence catalog |
| Date: | 2016-08-31 16:05:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20160831160534.73772m2m4i45bmgo@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-08-31 12:56:45 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I was thinking that nextval could grab a shared buffer lock and release
> immediately, just to ensure no one holds exclusive buffer lock
> concurrently (which would be used for things like dropping one seq tuple
> from the page, when a sequence is dropped); then control access to each
> sequence tuple using LockDatabaseObject. This is a HW lock, heavier
> than a buffer's LWLock, but it seems better than wasting a full 8kb for
> each sequence.
That's going to go be a *lot* slower, I don't think that's ok. I've a
hard time worrying about the space waste here; especially considering
where we're coming from.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2016-08-31 16:07:00 | Re: Optimizing aggregates |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-08-31 15:56:45 | Re: pg_sequence catalog |