From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: O(n) tasks cause lengthy startups and checkpoints |
Date: | 2023-04-02 20:23:05 |
Message-ID: | 1056498.1680466985@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 01:40:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * Why does LookupCustodianFunctions think it needs to search the
>> constant array?
> The order of the tasks in the array isn't guaranteed to match the order in
> the CustodianTask enum.
Why not? It's a constant array, we can surely manage to make its
order match the enum.
>> * The original proposal included moving RemovePgTempFiles into this
>> mechanism, which I thought was probably the most useful bit of the
>> whole thing. I'm sad to see that gone, what became of it?
> I postponed that based on advice from upthread [1]. I was hoping to start
> a dedicated thread for that immediately after the custodian infrastructure
> was committed. FWIW I agree that it's the most useful task of what's
> proposed thus far.
Hmm, given Andres' objections there's little point in moving forward
without that task.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2023-04-02 20:24:16 | Re: Making background psql nicer to use in tap tests |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-04-02 20:13:38 | Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] Report the query string that caused a memory error under Valgrind |