From: | Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: relfilenode statistics |
Date: | 2024-11-29 15:52:13 |
Message-ID: | CALdSSPhFaLEWXG9Mn8-tZoS68rE52647a2oZ6jrUNSBtwadD0A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 at 20:20, Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 11:23:12AM +0500, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> > If we don’t have the relation OID when writing buffers out, can we
> > just store oid to buffertag mapping somewhere and use it?
>
> Do you mean add the relation OID into the BufferTag? While that could probably
> be done from a technical point of view (with probably non negligible amount
> of refactoring), I can see those cons:
Not exactly, what i had in mind was a separate hashmap into shared
memory, mapping buffertag<>oid.
> 2. Probably lot of refactoring
> 3. This new member would be there "only" for stats and reporting purpose as
> it is not needed at all for buffer related operations
To this design, your points 2&3 apply.
--
Best regards,
Kirill Reshke
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2024-11-29 16:40:54 | Re: Отв.: Re: UUID v7 |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-11-29 15:32:22 | Re: Guidance Needed for Testing PostgreSQL Patch (CF-5044) |