From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Subject: | Re: eliminate xl_heap_visible to reduce WAL (and eventually set VM on-access) |
Date: | 2025-09-02 23:11:01 |
Message-ID: | CAAKRu_Yc1VKM+iuKuJzncPXCYNqQz_jUFBYXuDiPC5k9sUiiQQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 5:52 PM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 5:12 AM Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > I did micro git-blame research here. I spotted only one related change
> > [0]. Looks like before this change pin was indeed needed.
> > But not after this change, so this visibilitymap_pin is just an oversight?
> > Related thread is [1]. I quickly checked the discussion in this
> > thread, and it looks like no one was bothered about these lines or VM
> > logging changes (in this exact pin buffer aspect). The discussion was
> > of other aspects of this commit.
>
> Wow, thanks so much for doing that research. Looking at it myself, it
> does indeed seem like just an oversight. It isn't harmful since it
> won't take another pin, but it is confusing, so I think we should at
> least remove it in master. I'm not as sure about back branches.
I've updated the commit message in the patch set to reflect the
research you did in attached v8.
- Melanie
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2025-09-02 23:38:31 | Re: COPY TO: provide hint when WHERE clause is used |
Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-09-02 21:57:48 | Re: Use bool with synced field (src/include/replication/slot.h) |