| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Improve eviction algorithm in ReorderBuffer |
| Date: | 2023-12-15 10:10:24 |
| Message-ID: | 202312151010.y64axdxuzcvi@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023-Dec-12, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> To deal with this problem, I initially thought of the idea (a)
> mentioned in the comment; use a binary heap to maintain the
> transactions sorted by the amount of changes or the size. But it seems
> not a good idea to try maintaining all transactions by its size since
> the size of each transaction could be changed frequently.
Hmm, maybe you can just use binaryheap_add_unordered and just let the
sizes change, and do binaryheap_build() at the point where the eviction
is needed.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"No necesitamos banderas
No reconocemos fronteras" (Jorge González)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jakub Wartak | 2023-12-15 10:36:26 | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |
| Previous Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2023-12-15 09:51:43 | Re: Transaction timeout |