| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: bug in SignalSomeChildren |
| Date: | 2010-12-17 16:00:29 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=MfQaNbEriv5O=1G7MrKwRwbuJ28vtST9+hYZC@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I think the attached might be a little tidier. Thoughts?
>
> I'm not really thrilled at the idea of calling
> IsPostmasterChildWalSender for every child whether or not it will have
> any impact on the decision. That involves touching shared memory which
> can be rather expensive (see previous discussions about shared cache
> lines and so forth).
The existing code already does that, unless I'm missing something. We
could improve on my proposed patch a bit by doing the is_autovacuum
test first and the walsender test second. I'm not sure how to improve
on it beyond that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-17 16:06:04 | Re: proposal: FOREACH-IN-ARRAY (probably for 9.2?) |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-12-17 15:58:26 | Re: proposal: FOREACH-IN-ARRAY (probably for 9.2?) |