|From:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|To:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|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)|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2017-01-31 19:10:05 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.
I'm a bit doubtful (but not extremely so) that that's ok.
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2017-01-31 22:21:28||Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2017-01-31 22:13:06||Re: Improvements in psql hooks for variables|