|From:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|To:||Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: introduce bufmgr hooks|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2022-09-01 13:11:50 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:29:31AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I'm very doubtful this is a good idea. These are quite hot paths. While not a
> > huge cost, adding an indirection isn't free nonetheless.
> Are you concerned about the NULL check or the potential hook
> implementations? I can probably test the former pretty easily, but the
> latter seems like a generic problem for many hooks.
Mostly the former. But the latter is also relevant - the lock nesting etc is
very hard to deal with if you don't know what runs inside.
> > I also think it'll
> > make it harder to improve things in this area, which needs quite a bit of
> > work.
> If you have specific refactoring in mind that you think ought to be a
> prerequisite for this change, I'm happy to give it a try.
There's a few semi-active threads (e.g. about not holding multiple buffer
partition locks). One important change is to split the way we acquire buffers
for file extensions - right now we get a victim buffer while holding the
relation extension lock, because there's simply no API to do otherwise. We
need to change that so we get acquire a victim buffer before holding the
extension lock (with the buffer pinned but not [tag] valid), then we need to
get the extension lock, insert it into its new position in the buffer mapping
|Next Message||jadel||2022-09-02 00:47:10||[PATCH] docs: Document the automatically generated names for indices|
|Previous Message||David Rowley||2022-09-02 00:27:45||Re: Fix possible bogus array out of bonds (src/backend/access/brin/brin_minmax_multi.c)|