| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: refactoring relation extension and BufferAlloc(), faster COPY |
| Date: | 2023-02-11 22:33:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20230211223340.wkgrfdu3utd7ypi4@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-02-11 14:25:06 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-01-20 13:40:55 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > v2-0004:
> >
> > 5. Is it worth having two versions of PinLocalBuffer() one to adjust
> > the usage count and one that does not? Couldn't the version that does
> > not adjust the count skip doing pg_atomic_read_u32()?
>
> I think it'd be nicer to just move the read inside the if
> (adjust_usagecount). That way the rest of the function doesn't have to be
> duplicated.
Ah, no, we need it for the return value. No current users of
PinLocalBuffer(adjust_usagecount = false)
need the return value, but I don't think that's necessarily the case.
I'm somewhat inclined to not duplicate it, but if you think it's worth it,
I'll do that.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-02-11 22:44:24 | Re: Use pg_pwritev_with_retry() instead of write() in dir_open_for_write() to avoid partial writes? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-02-11 22:25:06 | Re: refactoring relation extension and BufferAlloc(), faster COPY |