Re: [HACKERS] Broken O(n^2) avoidance in wal segment recycling.

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Broken O(n^2) avoidance in wal segment recycling.
Date: 2019-05-07 03:09:14
Message-ID: 20190507030914.GE1499@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 08:00:23PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Michael's email had a proposed patch. I think there's a few small
> changes needed, but otherwise it looks like the right direction to me.

I would not mind seeing this stuff fixed and back-patched.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2019-05-07 03:10:36 Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-05-07 03:07:56 Re: Heap lock levels for REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY not quite right?