From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz |
Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY |
Date: | 2018-11-16 04:54:30 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqE7pJ7f3GcRWTfpdE-DQLsXg74R8PMvw43ivXDM1EzQJg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 1:00 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 10:57:57AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Maybe partition_bounds_create() should've had a MemoryContext argument to
> > pass it the context we want it to create the PartitionBoundInfo in. That
> > way, we can simply pass rd_pdcxt to it and avoid making a copy. As is,
> > we're now allocating two copies of PartitionBoundInfo, one in the
> > CurrentMemoryContext and another in rd_pdcxt, whereas the previous code
> > would only allocate the latter. Maybe we should fix it as being a regression.
>
> Not sure about what you mean by regression here,
The regression is, as I mentioned, that the new code allocates two
copies of PartitionBoundInfo whereas only one would be allocated
before.
> but passing the memory
> context as an argument has sense as you can remove the extra partition
> bound copy, as it has sense to use an array instead of a list for
> performance, which may matter if many partitions are handled when
> building the cache. So cleaning up both things at the same time would
> be nice.
Maybe, the patch to add the memory context argument to
partition_bound_create and other related static functions in
partbound.c should be its own patch, as that seems to be a separate
issue. OTOH, other changes needed to implement Robert's proposal of
using PartitionBoundSpec and Oid arrays instead of existing lists
should be in the same patch.
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Naylor | 2018-11-16 05:01:36 | Re: [RFC] Removing "magic" oids |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2018-11-16 04:16:27 | Re: Undo logs |