| From: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |
| Date: | 2022-12-01 08:49:09 |
| Message-ID: | CAFBsxsH2Xf5cxEGF6XKE5pv8ohP8ay8wE_cOiu51vTi=_bk7-Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 3:03 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 4:00 PM John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
wrote:
> >
> > The bigger question in my mind is: Why is there an atomic variable in
backend-local memory?
>
> Because I use the same radix_tree and radix_tree_control structs for
> non-parallel and parallel vacuum. Therefore, radix_tree_control is
> allocated in DSM for parallel-vacuum cases or in backend-local memory
> for non-parallel vacuum cases.
Ok, that could be yet another reason to compile local- and shared-memory
functionality separately, but now I'm wondering why there are atomic
variables at all, since there isn't yet any locking support.
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-12-01 08:55:16 | Re: File API cleanup |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-12-01 08:46:10 | Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |