|From:||Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>|
|To:||Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|Subject:||Re: BufferAlloc: don't take two simultaneous locks|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> 21 дек. 2021 г., в 10:23, Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> написал(а):
I've took a look into the patch. The idea seems reasonable to me: clearing\evicting old buffer and placing new one seem to be different units of work, there is no need to couple both partition locks together. And the claimed performance impact is fascinating! Though I didn't verify it yet.
On a first glance API change in BufTable does not seem obvious to me. Is void *oldelem actually BufferTag * or maybe BufferLookupEnt *? What if we would like to use or manipulate with oldelem in future?
And the name BufTableFreeDeleted() confuses me a bit. You know, in C we usually free(), but in C++ we delete , and here we do both... Just to be sure.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
|Next Message||Julien Rouhaud||2022-01-22 09:10:18||Re: Proposal: allow database-specific role memberships|
|Previous Message||Shruthi Gowda||2022-01-22 07:20:30||Re: preserving db/ts/relfilenode OIDs across pg_upgrade (was Re: storing an explicit nonce)|