Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()?

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: 2023-10-17 12:41:15
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZ54E0w5vCXYRAFKnunZy_SKB-4rbFq+7L=qUgFUYdtfQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 7:31 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> Another option might be to just change the hash indexing code to follow
> the correct protocol, locking and calling MarkBufferDirty() in those 3
> call sites. Marking the buffer dirty is easy, but making sure that it's
> locked might require some refactoring. Robert, would following the
> right protocol here affect performance?

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking whether
dirtying buffers unnecessarily might be slower than not doing that?

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2023-10-17 12:45:44 Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner
Previous Message Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) 2023-10-17 12:18:04 RE: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node