Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Here procArrayGroupXid sounds like Xid at group level, how about
> >> > procArrayGroupMemberXid?
> >> > Find the patch with renamed variables for PGProc
> >> > (rename_pgproc_variables_v1.patch) attached with mail.
> >>
> >> I sort of hate to make these member names any longer, but I wonder if
> >> we should make it procArrayGroupClearXid etc.
> >
> > If we go by this suggestion, then the name will look like:
> > PGProc
> > {
> > ..
> > bool procArrayGroupClearXid, pg_atomic_uint32 procArrayGroupNextClearXid,
> > TransactionId procArrayGroupLatestXid;
> > ..
> >
> > PROC_HDR
> > {
> > ..
> > pg_atomic_uint32 procArrayGroupFirstClearXid;
> > ..
> > }
> >
> > I think whatever I sent in last patch were better. It seems to me it is
> > better to add some comments before variable names, so that anybody
> > referring them can understand better and I have added comments in
> > attached patch rename_pgproc_variables_v2.patch to explain the same.
>
> Well, I don't know. Anybody else have an opinion?
>
>
It seems that either people don't have any opinion on this matter or they
are okay with either of the naming conventions being discussed. I think
specifying Member after procArrayGroup can help distinguishing which
variables are specific to the whole group and which are specific to a
particular member. I think that will be helpful for other places as well
if we use this technique to improve performance. Let me know what
you think about the same.

I have verified that previous patches can be applied cleanly and passes
make check-world. To avoid confusion, I am attaching the latest
patches with this mail.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com