Re: Speedup of relation deletes during recovery

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 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 18:21:51
Message-ID: CAHGQGwFnRk7sbeZDXKxG+JJvNfeSnYDOFGUJuXWT=prC=gYWGA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> 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

+1

Attached is v3 patch which I implemented close-in-reverse-order idea
on v2.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

Attachment Content-Type Size
speedup_relation_deletes_during_recovery_v3.patch application/octet-stream 4.2 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2018-06-27 18:23:37 Re: Speedup of relation deletes during recovery
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-06-27 17:24:15 Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack