| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shawn Debnath <sdn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue |
| Date: | 2019-03-01 21:27:47 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobdCuF2xNvrL_6H3CzvZsc7nVJbLvd-SL6DSjj++x7trw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:35 PM Shawn Debnath <sdn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 03:03:19PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 2:36 PM Shawn Debnath <sdn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
> > > I disagree, at least with combining and retaining enums. Encoding all
> > > the possible request types with the current, planned and future SMGRs
> > > would cause a sheer explosion in the number of enum values.
> >
> > How big of an explosion would it be?
>
> 4 enum values x # of smgrs; currently md, soon undo and slru so 12 in
> total. Any future smgr addition will expand this further.
I thought the idea was that each smgr might have a different set of
requests. If they're all going to have the same set of requests then
I agree with you.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2019-03-01 21:51:06 | Re: Infinity vs Error for division by zero |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-03-01 21:23:31 | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |