| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Online checksums verification in the backend |
| Date: | 2020-10-28 05:08:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20201028050852.GF28445@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 07:47:19PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I think it's also worth noting that the IOLock is now acquired just
> before getting the buffer state, and released after the read (or after
> finding that the buffer is dirty). This is consistent with how it's
> done elsewhere, so I'm fine.
Consistency is the point. This API should be safe to use by design.
I have done some extra performance tests similar to what I did
upthread, and this version showed similar numbers.
> Other than that I'm quite happy with the changes you made, thanks a lot!
Thanks for confirming. I have gone through the whole set today,
splitted the thing into two commits and applied them. We had
buildfarm member florican complain about a mistake in one of the
GetDatum() calls that I took care of already, and there is nothing
else on my radar.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-10-28 05:14:55 | Re: Add important info about ANALYZE after create Functional Index |
| Previous Message | Yugo NAGATA | 2020-10-28 05:00:51 | Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance |