| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Speedup of relation deletes during recovery |
| Date: | 2018-06-27 01:44:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAEepm=3KujBx9Dzabu2YxfYggb+WfDtwy7R0=fJx0gGUkQ5Ytw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think we should take the hint in the comments and make it O(1)
>> anyway. See attached draft patch.
>
> Alternatively, here is a shorter and sweeter dlist version (I did the
> open-coded one thinking of theoretical back-patchability).
... though, on second thoughts, the dlist version steam-rolls over the
possibility that it might not be in the list (mentioned in the
comments, though it's not immediately clear how that would happen).
On further reflection, on the basis that it's the most conservative
change, +1 for Fujii-san's close-in-reverse-order idea. We should
reconsider that data structure for 12; there doesn't seems to be a
good reason to carry all those comments warning about performance when
the O(1) version is shorter than the comments.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-06-27 01:46:55 | Re: Speedup of relation deletes during recovery |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-06-27 01:13:21 | Re: Speedup of relation deletes during recovery |