| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Speedup of relation deletes during recovery |
| Date: | 2018-06-27 01:46:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20180627014655.si4u37aop3apcsow@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-06-27 13:44:03 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On further reflection, on the basis that it's the most conservative
> change, +1 for Fujii-san's close-in-reverse-order idea. We should
> reconsider that data structure for 12; there doesn't seems to be a
> good reason to carry all those comments warning about performance when
> the O(1) version is shorter than the comments.
Agreed on this. I like the dlist version more than the earlier one, so
let's fix it up, for v12+. But regardless I'd argue that we consider
disabling that infrastructure while in recovery - it's just unnecessary.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2018-06-27 03:28:47 | Re: Is PG built on any C compilers where int division floors? |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-06-27 01:44:03 | Re: Speedup of relation deletes during recovery |