| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Subscription code improvements |
| Date: | 2018-03-07 14:13:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20180307141348.fm2s767s7eb7bva5@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
0002 looks like a good improvement to me. The existing routine is
messy, and apparently it's so just to save one LockSharedObject plus
cache lookup; IMO it's not worth it. Patched code looks simpler. If
there are cases where having the combined behavior is useful, it's not
clear what they are. (If I understand correctly, the reason is that a
sync worker could try to insert-or-update the row after some other
process deleted it [because of removing the table from subscription?]
... but that seems to work out *simpler* with the new code. So what's
up?)
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-03-07 14:21:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-03-07 14:13:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Subscription code improvements |