| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Luc Vlaming <luc(at)swarm64(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Paul Guo <guopa(at)vmware(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Table Access Methods for Multi and Single Inserts |
| Date: | 2022-10-12 05:30:59 |
| Message-ID: | Y0ZRE+glRLDUyUb3@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 05:09:23PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> That's for the AM-internal flushing; yes. I was thinking about the AM
> api for flushing that's used when finalizing the batched insert; i.e.
> table_multi_insert_flush.
>
> Currently it assumes that all buffered tuples will be flushed after
> one call (which is correct for heap), but putting those unflushed
> tuples all at once back in memory might not be desirable or possible
> (for e.g. columnar); so we might need to call table_multi_insert_flush
> until there's no more buffered tuples.
This thread has been idle for 6 months now, so I have marked it as
returned with feedback as of what looks like a lack of activity. I
have looked at what's been proposed, and I am not really sure if the
direction taken is correct, though there may be a potential gain in
consolidating the multi-insert path within the table AM set of
callbacks.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-10-12 05:32:31 | Re: Kerberos delegation support in libpq and postgres_fdw |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-10-12 05:26:38 | Re: [PATCH] Clarify the comments about varlena header encoding |