From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Gather performance analysis |
Date: | 2021-09-16 07:25:06 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-t1UQVx4RwYVxyEMEn1Cvg1BpMoFAWB+dG=SQFaD6_HJw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 5:04 PM Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>
>> * mqh_partial_bytes, mqh_expected_bytes, and mqh_length_word_complete
>>
>> + Size mqh_send_pending;
>> bool mqh_length_word_complete;
>> bool mqh_counterparty_attached;
>>
>> I wonder if mqh_send_pending should be declared after mqh_length_word_complete - this way, the order of fields matches the order of explanation for the fields.
Moved it after mqh_consume_pending and moved comment as well in the
correct order.
>
> There was a typo in suggested code above. It should be:
>
> + if (force_flush || mqh->mqh_send_pending > (mq->mq_ring_size >> 2))
Done
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v2-0001-Optimize-parallel-tuple-send-shm_mq_send_bytes.patch | text/x-patch | 10.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2021-09-16 08:23:46 | Re: Split xlog.c |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2021-09-16 06:29:43 | Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables |