| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: unnecessary code in_bt_split |
| Date: | 2008-08-03 23:44:33 |
| Message-ID: | 15674.1217807073@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
> I found that _bt_split function calls PageGetTempPage, but next call is
> _bt_page_init which clear all contents anyway. Is there any reason to call
> PageGetTempPage instead of palloc?
Not violating a perfectly good abstraction?
I agree that PageGetTempPage isn't amazingly efficient, but internal
refactoring would halve its cost; and if you have some evidence that
there's a real performance issue then we could think about adjusting
the temp-page API to allow _bt_pageinit to be combined with it. But
I have a real problem with hacking up _bt_split so that it will call
PageRestoreTempPage on something it didn't get from PageGetTempPage.
Considering the WAL and regular I/O that will be induced by a split,
I kinda doubt this is even worth worrying about anyway...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2008-08-04 00:56:07 | Re: Mini improvement: statement_cost_limit |
| Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-08-03 21:19:01 | unnecessary code in_bt_split |