| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BufferAlloc: don't take two simultaneous locks |
| Date: | 2022-02-25 09:38:36 |
| Message-ID: | CANbhV-H-Nd9B_dhvUSTKfHvLNNjCe58U-=ENCMqHnuxe9sbiKg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 09:24, Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> > This approach is cleaner than v1, but should also perform better
> > because there will be a 1:1 relationship between a buffer and its
> > dynahash entry, most of the time.
>
> Thank you for suggestion. Yes, it is much clearer than my initial proposal.
>
> Should I incorporate it to v4 patch? Perhaps, it could be a separate
> commit in new version.
I don't insist that you do that, but since the API changes are a few
hours work ISTM better to include in one patch for combined perf
testing. It would be better to put all changes in this area into PG15
than to split it across multiple releases.
> Why there is need for this? Which way backend could be forced to abort
> between BufTableReuse and BufTableAssign in this code path? I don't
> see any CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS on the way, but may be I'm missing
> something.
Sounds reasonable.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yura Sokolov | 2022-02-25 09:51:22 | Re: BufferAlloc: don't take two simultaneous locks |
| Previous Message | Gunnar "Nick" Bluth | 2022-02-25 09:35:49 | Re: PATCH: add "--config-file=" option to pg_rewind |