From: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: O(n) tasks cause lengthy startups and checkpoints |
Date: | 2022-11-24 17:31:02 |
Message-ID: | CANbhV-EagKLoUH7tLEfg__VcLu37LY78F8gvLMzHrRZyZKm6sw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 at 00:19, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 02:38:42PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > rebased
>
> another rebase for cfbot
0001 seems good to me
* I like that it sleeps forever until requested
* not sure I believe that everything it does can always be aborted out
of and shutdown - to achieve that you will need a
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() calls in the loops in patches 5 and 6 at least
* not sure why you want immediate execution of custodian tasks - I
feel supporting two modes will be a lot harder. For me, I would run
locally when !IsUnderPostmaster and also in an Assert build, so we can
test it works right - i.e. running in its own process is just a
production optimization for performance (which is the stated reason
for having this)
0005 seems good from what I know
* There is no check to see if it worked in any sane time
* It seems possible that "Old" might change meaning - will that make
it break/fail?
0006 seems good also
* same comments for 5
Rather than explicitly use DEBUG1 everywhere I would have an
#define CUSTODIAN_LOG_LEVEL LOG
so we can run with it in LOG mode and then set it to DEBUG1 with a one
line change in a later phase of Beta
I can't really comment with knowledge on sub-patches 0002 to 0004.
Perhaps you should aim to get 1, 5, 6 committed first and then return
to the others in a later CF/separate thread?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-11-24 17:34:49 | Re: Fix for visibility check on 14.5 fails on tpcc with high concurrency |
Previous Message | Nikolay Shaplov | 2022-11-24 17:07:29 | Re: TAP output format in pg_regress |