| From: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Slow standby snapshot |
| Date: | 2022-07-03 09:42:51 |
| Message-ID: | D9B97F6D-2674-43CB-BEE2-D4C0C338C40F@yandex-team.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 1 Apr 2022, at 04:18, Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> Just an updated commit message.
I've looked into v5.
IMO the purpose of KnownAssignedXidsNext would be slightly more obvious if it was named KnownAssignedXidsNextOffset.
Also please consider some editorialisation:
s/high value/big number/g
KnownAssignedXidsNext[] is updating while taking the snapshot. -> KnownAssignedXidsNext[] is updated during taking the snapshot.
O(N) next call -> amortized O(N) on next call
Is it safe on all platforms to do "KnownAssignedXidsNext[prev] = n;" while only holding shared lock? I think it is, per Alexander's comment, but maybe let's document it?
Thank you!
Thanks! Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2022-07-03 10:32:27 | Re: making relfilenodes 56 bits |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2022-07-03 08:32:17 | Re: 15beta1 tab completion of extension versions |