From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Speedup of relation deletes during recovery |
Date: | 2018-06-27 18:21:51 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwFnRk7sbeZDXKxG+JJvNfeSnYDOFGUJuXWT=prC=gYWGA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Thomas Munro
>> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I think we should take the hint in the comments and make it O(1)
>>> anyway. See attached draft patch.
>>
>> Alternatively, here is a shorter and sweeter dlist version (I did the
>> open-coded one thinking of theoretical back-patchability).
>
> ... though, on second thoughts, the dlist version steam-rolls over the
> possibility that it might not be in the list (mentioned in the
> comments, though it's not immediately clear how that would happen).
>
> On further reflection, on the basis that it's the most conservative
> change, +1 for Fujii-san's close-in-reverse-order idea. We should
> reconsider that data structure for 12
+1
Attached is v3 patch which I implemented close-in-reverse-order idea
on v2.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
speedup_relation_deletes_during_recovery_v3.patch | application/octet-stream | 4.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-06-27 18:23:37 | Re: Speedup of relation deletes during recovery |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-06-27 17:24:15 | Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |