| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible |
| Date: | 2024-02-16 17:31:18 |
| Message-ID: | af050344971d5e905e6857e94aaf2495714db393.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2024-02-16 at 13:08 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I'd suggest we strike a balance here - error out in assert builds if
> startptr+count is past the current insert position and trust the
> callers for production builds.
It's not reasonable to have divergent behavior between assert-enabled
builds and production. I think for now I will just commit the Assert as
Andres suggested until we work out a few more details.
One idea is to use Álvaro's work to eliminate the spinlock, and then
add a variable to represent the last known point returned by
WaitXLogInsertionsToFinish(). Then we can cheaply Assert that the
caller requested something before that point.
> Here, I'm with v23 patch set:
Thank you, I'll look at these.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2024-02-16 17:35:59 | Re: BitmapHeapScan streaming read user and prelim refactoring |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-02-16 15:54:49 | Re: Psql meta-command conninfo+ |