| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com" <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: inefficient loop in StandbyReleaseLockList() |
| Date: | 2021-10-28 23:15:50 |
| Message-ID: | B4C04240-1AAC-4200-9636-BCC7984688D8@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/28/21, 3:25 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> Which leads to to wonder whether the better fix would be to switch to deleting
>> the last element, but still use the while (!empty) style. That should convert
>> the O(n^2) due to 1cff1b9 back to O(n). It might or might not be faster/slower
>> than using foreach(), but it should be within the same ballpark.
>
> Does it matter what order we're releasing the locks in?
I'm not seeing anything that indicates the ordering matters. AFAICT
either approach would work in this case. IMO changing the order is
scarier than switching to foreach(), though.
Nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-28 23:24:08 | Re: inefficient loop in StandbyReleaseLockList() |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-10-28 22:59:22 | add more support for PG_DIAG_COLUMN_NAME |