Re: Reduce cleanup lock contention on standby replay

From: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Subject: Re: Reduce cleanup lock contention on standby replay
Date: 2026-09-21 15:35:35
Message-ID: CAAKRu_bu-LVpuKUeWX56AcQR5eLkGvH2rRxF95zPvc0W09xNZw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 10:29 AM Matthias van de Meent
<boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2026, 00:40 SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM,
> <satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Patch 2: Skip cleanup lock on replay for freeze-only prune records
>
> That seems fine with me.

I'm planning to commit the heap_page_prune_and_freeze() part of patch
2 after beta 4 is tagged since I'd rather not backpatch to 17 but skip
19. The part adding info to heap2_desc() I could see committing to
master potentially but I don't think makes sense to backpatch.

- Melanie

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2026-09-21 15:35:41 Re: Race conditions in logical decoding
Previous Message Andres Freund 2026-09-21 15:30:54 Re: [Proposal] Expose internal MultiXact member count function for efficient monitoring