Re: performance issue in remove_from_unowned_list()

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: performance issue in remove_from_unowned_list()
Date: 2019-03-27 02:36:12
Message-ID: 20190327023612.GC4406@development
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 02:22:40AM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> ...
>OK, so here is a bit more polished version of the dlist-based patch.
>It's almost identical to what I posted before, except that it:
>1) undoes the non-working optimization in DropRelationFiles()
>2) removes add_to_unowned_list/remove_from_unowned_list entirely and
>just replaces that with dlist_push_tail/dlist_delete
>I've originally planned to keep those functions, mostly because the
>remove_from_unowned_list comment says this:
> - * If the reln is not present in the list, nothing happens.
> - * Typically this would be caller error, but there seems no
> - * reason to throw an error.
>I don't think dlist_delete allows that. But after further inspection of
>all places calling those functions, don't think that can happen.
>I plan to commit this soon-ish and backpatch it as mentioned before,
>because I consider it pretty much a fix for b4166911.

Aaaaaand committed + backpatched.

>Tomas Vondra
>PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-03-27 02:36:50 Re: Shouldn't current_schema() be at least PARALLEL RESTRICTED?
Previous Message Tsunakawa, Takayuki 2019-03-27 02:35:03 RE: Re: reloption to prevent VACUUM from truncating empty pages at the end of relation