From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: old_snapshot_threshold bottleneck on replica |
Date: | 2023-09-08 03:48:43 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKG+=s+8+Dto0rE7B3oJREzBfapOuLGFbYamNiOuhJs5vYw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 2:00 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 1:53 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> > Thanks for working on this. Though I wonder why you didn't do
> > something closer to a straight revert of the feature. Why is nbtree
> > still passing around snapshots needlessly?
The code moved around quite a few times over several commits and quite
a lot since then, which is why I didn't go for straight revert, but
clearly the manual approach risked missing things. I think the
attached removes all unused 'snapshot' arguments from AM-internal
functions. Checked by compiling with clang's -Wunused-parameters, and
then searching for 'snapshot', and excluding the expected cases.
> > Also, why are there still many comments referencing the feature?
> > There's the one above should_attempt_truncation(), for example.
> > Another appears above init_toast_snapshot(). Are these just
> > oversights, or was it deliberate? You said something about retaining
> > vestiges.
Stray comments removed.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-Remove-some-more-snapshot-too-old-vestiges.patch | text/x-patch | 24.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2023-09-08 03:54:47 | Re: Row pattern recognition |
Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2023-09-08 03:47:49 | BUG #18097: Immutable expression not allowed in generated at |