Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Shawn Debnath <sdn(at)amazon(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue
Date: 2019-03-01 20:03:19
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob3hqmNr-EJsudHvFohXKn5wm=Un+nWKXuJiL0fibqhyQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 2:36 PM Shawn Debnath <sdn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
> I disagree, at least with combining and retaining enums. Encoding all
> the possible request types with the current, planned and future SMGRs
> would cause a sheer explosion in the number of enum values.

How big of an explosion would it be?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2019-03-01 20:27:36 Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS)
Previous Message Chapman Flack 2019-03-01 20:01:36 Re: Infinity vs Error for division by zero