Re: Switch to multi-inserts for pg_depend

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Subject: Re: Switch to multi-inserts for pg_depend
Date: 2020-08-13 04:40:45
Message-ID: 20200813044045.GF11663@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 07:52:42PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Yeah. As I understand, the only reason to have this number is to avoid
> an arbitrarily large number of entries created as a single multi-insert
> WAL record ... but does that really ever happen? I guess if you create
> a table with some really complicated schema you might get, say, a
> hundred pg_depend rows at once. But to fill eight complete pages of
> pg_depend entries sounds astoundingly ridiculous already -- I'd say it's
> just an easy way to spell "infinity" for this. Tweaking one infinity
> value to become some other infinity value sounds useless.
>
> So I agree with what Andres said. Let's have just one such define and
> be done with it.

Okay. Would src/include/catalog/catalog.h be a suited location for
this flag or somebody has a better idea?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2020-08-13 04:42:49 Re: Parallel query hangs after a smart shutdown is issued
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2020-08-13 04:38:05 REINDEX SCHEMA/DATABASE/SYSTEM weak with dropped relations