| From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Artur Zakirov <zaartur(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Subject: | Re: type cache cleanup improvements |
| Date: | 2024-10-21 08:10:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdvMVevMxAob4Yav9LyW2a4nrWqxUVQ8K1=Hs7EjOPQk1w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 8:40 AM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 21/10/2024 06:32, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> > Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >
> >> +static Oid *in_progress_list;
> >> +static int in_progress_list_len;
> >> +static int in_progress_list_maxlen;
> >
> > Is there any particular reason not to use pg_list.h for this?
> Sure. The type cache lookup has to be as much optimal as possible.
> Using an array and relating sequential access to it, we avoid memory
> allocations and deallocations 99.9% of the time. Also, quick access to
> the single element (which we will have in real life almost all of the
> time) is much faster than employing list machinery.
+1,
List with zero elements has to be NIL. That means continuous
allocations/deallocations.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2024-10-21 08:11:47 | Re: type cache cleanup improvements |
| Previous Message | jian he | 2024-10-21 07:51:40 | Re: type cache cleanup improvements |