Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
Date: 2017-01-31 22:10:05
Message-ID: 20170131221005.24lqwbdqg3dpvmeq@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-01-31 14:10:01 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> > Hmm, I was thinking we would get rid of CatalogUpdateIndexes altogether.
> > Two of the callers are in the new routines (which I propose to rename to
> > CatalogTupleInsert and CatalogTupleUpdate); the only remaining one is in
> > InsertPgAttributeTuple. I propose that we inline the three lines into
> > all those places and just remove CatalogUpdateIndexes. Half the out-of-
> > core places that are using this function will be broken as soon as WARM
> > lands anyway. I see no reason to keep it. (I have already modified the
> > patch this way -- no need to resend).
> >
> > Unless there are objections I will push this later this afternoon.
> Hm, sorry for missing this earlier. I think CatalogUpdateIndexes() is
> fairly widely used in extensions - it seems like a pretty harsh change
> to not leave some backward compatibility layer in place.

Yeah, I can put it back if there's pushback about the removal, but I
think it's going to break due to WARM anyway.

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-01-31 22:13:06 Re: Improvements in psql hooks for variables
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2017-01-31 22:07:12 Re: Time to up bgwriter_lru_maxpages?