|From:||Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Юрий Соколов <funny(dot)falcon(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, funny(dot)falcon(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] Lazy hash table for XidInMVCCSnapshot (helps Zipfian a bit)|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
>On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 1:27 PM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 at 19:58, Yura Sokolov <funny(dot)falcon(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I didn't change serialized format. Therefore is no need to change
> > SerializeSnapshot.
> > But in-memory representation were changed, so RestoreSnapshot is changed.
> This patch went through the last tree commit fests without any noticeable
> activity, but cfbot says it still applies and doesn't break any tests. Taking
> into account potential performance improvements, I believe it would be a pity
> to stop at this point.
> Yura, what're your plans about it? If I understand correctly, there are still
> some commentaries, that were not answered from the last few messages. At the
> same time can anyone from active reviewers (Tomas, Amit) look at it to agree on
> what should be done to push it forward?
Due to lack of response I'm marking it as "Returned with feedback". Feel free
to resubmit a new version though.
|Next Message||Francesco Nidito||2018-11-30 15:10:50||Log level of logical decoding|
|Previous Message||Simon Riggs||2018-11-30 14:55:47||Re: pgsql: Avoid duplicate XIDs at recovery when building initial snapshot|