From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: making relfilenodes 56 bits |
Date: | 2022-07-06 11:54:43 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-vTe79M8uDH1yprOU64MNFE+R3ODRuA+JWf27JbhY4hJw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 2:32 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 4:33 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I thought about this comment from Robert
> > > that's not quite the same as either of those things. For example, in
> > > tableam.h we currently say "This callback needs to create a new
> > > relation filenode for `rel`" and how should that be changed in this
> > > new naming? We're not creating a new RelFileNumber - those would need
> > > to be allocated, not created, as all the numbers in the universe exist
> > > already. Neither are we creating a new locator; that sounds like it
> > > means assembling it from pieces.
> >
> > I think that "This callback needs to create a new relation storage
> > for `rel`" looks better.
>
> I like the idea, but it would sound better to say "create new relation
> storage" rather than "create a new relation storage."
Okay, changed that and changed a few more occurrences in 0001 which
were on similar lines. I also tested the performance of pg_bench
where concurrently I am running the script which creates/drops
relation but I do not see any regression with fairly small values of
VAR_RELNUMBER_PREFETCH, the smallest value I tried was 8. That
doesn't mean I am suggesting this small value but I think we can keep
the value something like 512 or 1024 without worrying much about the
performance, so changed to 512 in the latest patch.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v6-0004-Assert-checking-to-be-merged-with-0003.patch | text/x-patch | 4.7 KB |
v6-0003-Use-56-bits-for-relfilenumber-to-avoid-wraparound.patch | text/x-patch | 77.6 KB |
v6-0005-Don-t-delay-removing-Tombstone-file-until-next.patch | text/x-patch | 13.4 KB |
v6-0001-Rename-RelFileNode-to-RelFileLocator-and-relNode-.patch | text/x-patch | 412.9 KB |
v6-0002-Preliminary-refactoring-for-supporting-larger.patch | text/x-patch | 20.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-07-06 11:56:00 | Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-07-06 11:39:30 | Re: Handle infinite recursion in logical replication setup |