From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()? |
Date: | 2023-10-19 20:12:52 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY+dagCyrMKau7UQeQU6w4LuVEu+yjsmJBoXKAo6XbUUA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 12:38 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> I meant: are those cleanup operations frequent enough that dirtying
> those buffers in that case would matter?
Honestly, I'm not sure. Probably not? I mean, hashbucketcleanup()
seems to only be called during vacuum or a bucket split, and I don't
think you can have super-frequent calls to _hash_freeovflpage()
either. For what it's worth, though, I think it would be better to
just make these cases exceptions to your Assert, as you did in the
patch, rather than changing them to dirty the buffer. There doesn't
seem to be enough upside to making the assert unconditional to justify
changing stuff that might have a real-world performance cost ... even
if we don't think it would amount to much.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Banck | 2023-10-19 20:30:04 | Re: [patch] pg_basebackup: mention that spread checkpoints are the default in --help |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-10-19 20:00:13 | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |