From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | 1-byte id for SharedInvalidationMessages |
Date: | 2010-08-10 01:54:15 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimbQzESc8a8T5Ce9T9=22uQ=Q8e6XUzWkARWire@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Do you think it's worth worrying about the reduction in the number of
>> possible SI message types?
>
> IIRC the number of message types is the number of catalog caches plus
> half a dozen or so. We're a long way from exhausting even a 1-byte
> ID field; and we could play more games if we had to, since there would
> be a padding byte free in the message types that refer to a catalog
> cache. IOW, 1-byte id doesn't bother me.
I took a look at what is required to implement $SUBJECT tonight and it
appears to be remarkably straightforward. I suppose this qualifies as
a reason to increment WAL_PAGE_MAGIC, since SharedInvalidationMessages
are now xlogged; and I added an Assert() to
AddCatCacheInvalidationMessage to detect overruns of the id field, but
other than that it seems to be just a matter of s/int16/int8/ in a
handful of places.
For those following along at home:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-07/msg00355.php [the
patch for which this is a prerequisite]
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-08/msg00366.php [why
it needs it]
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-08/msg00425.php [how
this helps]
Thoughts?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
sinvalmsg-v1.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Oliveira | 2010-08-10 02:46:14 | Re: Universal B-tree |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-08-10 01:53:00 | Re: TODO 9.0 done items removed |