Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Date: 2010-04-25 16:51:58
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 11:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This needs a redesign before it can be considered committable.  I don't
>> really care whether it makes things faster; it's too complicated and too
>> poorly documented to be maintainable.

> There are more than 60 lines of header comment explaining in detail how
> this works, with a full algorithmic analysis. The remaining code is
> commented to project standards, with easily more than 100 lines of
> comments. 

If the comments were correct, I wouldn't be complaining.  They're
misleading or outright wrong on many points.  In particular, I don't
think you actually understand the weak-memory-ordering issue, because
the comments about that are entirely wrong.  I don't think they are
adequate on other points either --- for example, I now understand why my
complaint of a few minutes ago about KnownAssignedXidsValid is wrong,
but the comments certainly didn't help me on that.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-04-25 16:54:59
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-04-25 16:46:38
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group