From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree |
Date: | 2013-06-27 22:18:50 |
Message-ID: | 2037.1372371530@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I'm looking at the combined patches 0003-0005, which are essentially all
> about adding a function to obtain relation OID from (tablespace,
> filenode). It takes care to look through the relation mapper, and uses
> a new syscache underneath for performance.
> One question about this patch, originally, was about the usage of
> that relfilenode syscache. It is questionable because it would be the
> only syscache to apply on top of a non-unique index.
... which, I assume, is on top of a pg_class index that doesn't exist
today. Exactly what is the argument that says performance of this
function is sufficiently critical to justify adding both the maintenance
overhead of a new pg_class index, *and* a broken-by-design syscache?
Lose the cache and this probably gets a lot easier to justify. As is,
I think I'd vote to reject altogether.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-06-27 22:21:30 | Re: updated emacs configuration |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-06-27 22:16:45 | Re: changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree |