| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing opr_sanity test's runtime under CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS |
| Date: | 2021-05-10 23:17:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20210510231725.bk6ojepc3jhuwzkb@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-05-11 10:57:03 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 8:52 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > ... If we did make the check support shared memory *and*
> > partitioned tables, I could easily see it be a win for things like
> > LockReleaseAll().
Errr, that's not even a shared hashtable... So it would help even if we
just excluded shared memory hashtables.
> For that case, has the idea of maintaining a dlist of local locks been
> considered?
Yea, there's been a long discussion on that for
LockReleaseAll(). Combined with alternatives around shrinking the hashtable...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-05-10 23:37:04 | Is element access after HASH_REMOVE ever OK? |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-05-10 23:14:56 | Re: PG 14 release notes, first draft |