| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Interval for launching the table sync worker |
| Date: | 2017-04-18 16:14:42 |
| Message-ID: | 560d99e1-3efb-1679-78ea-23932fcf313c@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/18/17 11:59, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Hmm if we create hashtable for this, I'd say create hashtable for the
> whole table_states then. The reason why it's list now was that it seemed
> unnecessary to have hashtable when it will be empty almost always but
> there is no need to have both hashtable + list IMHO.
The difference is that we blow away the list of states when the catalog
changes, but we keep the hash table with the start times around. We
need two things with different life times.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Euler Taveira | 2017-04-18 16:17:22 | logical replication fixes |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-04-18 16:13:26 | Re: Interval for launching the table sync worker |