| From: | John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | cca5507 <cca5507(at)qq(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A small problem when rehashing catalog cache |
| Date: | 2026-01-05 08:30:43 |
| Message-ID: | CANWCAZYDCUadH4D-vX7dH0HibE-zTGfLRvc2dwrgJwr1-3zD8w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 10:35 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> Indeed, the code bothers putting a fresh matching entry at the
> beginning of a bucket, and the code does the opposite when moving
> entries around, which is inconsistent to say the least. If we move
> the entries at the tail instead as you are suggesting the "freshness"
> would be preserved better. This deserves a comment, at least.
>
> 20cb18db4668 has added the RehashCatCache() part, with 473182c9523a
> copying the same pattern for RehashCatCacheLists().
>
> Thoughts or opinions from others?
I suspect it doesn't make much difference in the grand scheme of
things, but the code has to do either one thing or the other, so +1 to
do the more sensible thing.
--
John Naylor
Amazon Web Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2026-01-05 08:38:37 | Re: Decouple C++ support in Meson's PGXS from LLVM enablement |
| Previous Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2026-01-05 08:24:57 | RE: Patch for migration of the pg_commit_ts directory |