From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Some other CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS culprits |
Date: | 2021-05-14 21:43:19 |
Message-ID: | 2196018.1621028599@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> On 2021-May-14, Tom Lane wrote:
>> An idea I'd been toying with was to make invals probabilistic, that is
>> there would be X% chance of an inval being forced at any particular
>> opportunity. Then you could dial X up or down to make a tradeoff
>> between speed and the extent of coverage you get from a single run.
>> (Over time, you could expect pretty complete coverage even with X
>> not very close to 1, I think.)
> Maybe we could say that debug_invalidate_system_caches_always=2 means to
> use the current behavior, and debug_invalidate_system_caches_always=1
> uses some probabilistic rule?
What I had in mind was to replace the boolean with an actual fraction.
Probability zero is the non-debug behavior, and probability one gives
you the same result as CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS, and values in between
give you tradeoffs. But I'm not sure exactly how to extend that to
the recursive cases.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ranier Vilela | 2021-05-14 21:43:24 | Possible memory corruption (src/timezone/zic.c b/src/timezone/zic.c) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-05-14 21:38:48 | Re: Some other CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS culprits |