Re: _mdfd_getseg can be expensive

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: _mdfd_getseg can be expensive
Date: 2016-07-01 01:34:20
Message-ID: CAM3SWZSbeZPWX845k18zWRO-LSCS5+sJvYUmmR2TZ_-ygNDDCw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I plan to, once the tree opens again. Likely needs some considerable
> updates for recent changes.

Offhand, do you think that CREATE INDEX calls to smgrextend() could be
appreciably affected by this bottleneck? If that's a very involved or
difficult question, then no need to answer now.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tsunakawa, Takayuki 2016-07-01 01:35:00 Re: Is a UDF binary portable across different minor releases and PostgreSQL distributions?
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2016-07-01 01:28:42 Re: initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)