| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Faster inserts with mostly-monotonically increasing values |
| Date: | 2018-04-10 14:19:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpbJxLRn4zJpFSQgWBSU=j_01yWDHmZv1EGSfV7=fXqhNw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>> /* XLOG stuff */
>> if (RelationNeedsWAL(rel))
>> {
>> ...
>>
>> if (P_ISLEAF(lpageop))
>> {
>> xlinfo = XLOG_BTREE_INSERT_LEAF;
>>
>> /*
>> * Cache the block information if we just
>> inserted into the
>> * rightmost leaf page of the index.
>> */
>> if (P_RIGHTMOST(lpageop))
>> RelationSetTargetBlock(rel,
>> BufferGetBlockNumber(buf));
>> }
>> ...
>
>
>
> Why is this RelationSetTargetBlock() call inside the "XLOG stuff" block?
> ISTM that we're failing to take advantage of this optimization for unlogged
> tables, for no particular reason. Just an oversight?
>
> - Heikki
Indeed.
Maybe Pavan knows of one, but I don't see any reason not to apply this
to unlogged tables as well. It slipped the review.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2018-04-10 14:20:16 | Re: Faster inserts with mostly-monotonically increasing values |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-04-10 14:17:43 | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: Foreign Key Arrays |