Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes
Date: 2012-07-17 18:01:10
Message-ID: 14060.1342548070@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> I had thought that we might get a performance boost here by saving fsync
> queue traffic, but I see that md.c was already not calling
> register_dirty_segment for temp rels, so there's no joy there.

Actually, wait a second. We were smart enough to not send fsync
requests in the first place for temp rels. But we were not smart enough
to not call ForgetRelationFsyncRequests when deleting a temp rel,
which made for an entirely useless scan through the pending-fsyncs
table. So there could be win there, on top of not forwarding the actual
unlink operation.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-07-17 18:12:15 Re: pl/perl and utf-8 in sql_ascii databases
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2012-07-17 17:58:38 Re: several problems in pg_receivexlog