Re: Skip vacuum log report code in lazy_scan_heap() if possible

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Skip vacuum log report code in lazy_scan_heap() if possible
Date: 2021-12-03 01:13:44
Message-ID: 20211203011344.lkxqyzhnm6jopubh@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2021-12-03 09:53:22 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 10:22:25PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > Since I have no further comments, I went ahead and marked this once as
> > ready-for-committer.
>
> Well, as you say, lazy_scan_heap() is only run once per relation, so
> that's not a hot code path.

Yea, it seems like a premature optimization.

> Looking at the callers of
> message_level_is_interesting(), we apply that also in areas where a
> lot of unnecessary work would be involved, like the drop of object
> dependencies or ProcSleep() (I recall that there were profiles where
> standby replies in walsender.c could show up). And based on the
> amount of unnecessary work done at the end of lazy_scan_heap(), I'd
> say that this is worth skipping, so let's do it.

I think this mostly reduces the coverage of the relevant code without any
measurable speed gain. -0.5 from here.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2021-12-03 01:16:24 Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index
Previous Message Bossart, Nathan 2021-12-03 01:10:42 Re: Temporary tables versus wraparound... again