From: | Markus Wanner <markus(dot)wanner(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: API stability [was: pgsql: Fix possible recovery trouble if TRUNCATE overlaps a checkpoint.] |
Date: | 2022-04-11 19:45:59 |
Message-ID: | dcf25653867a82c96d8da9e43d1d7c2bc41cab09.camel@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2022-04-11 at 15:21 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> ... before v13, the commit in question actually
> changed the size of PGXACT, which is really quite bad -- it needs to
> be 12 bytes for performance reasons. And there's no spare bytes
> available, so I think we should follow one of the suggestions that he
> had over in that email thread, and put delayChkptEnd in PGPROC even
> though delayChkpt is in PGXACT.
This makes sense to me. Kudos to Kyotaro for considering this.
At first read, this sounded like a trade-off between compatibility and
performance for PG 12 and older. But I realize leaving delayChkpt in
PGXACT and adding just delayChkptEnd to PGPROC is compatible and leaves
PGXACT at a size of 12 bytes. So this sounds like a good approach to
me.
Best Regards
Markus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-04-11 19:56:14 | pgsql: Remove dead code in do_pg_backup_start(). |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-04-11 19:21:06 | Re: API stability [was: pgsql: Fix possible recovery trouble if TRUNCATE overlaps a checkpoint.] |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-04-11 20:11:22 | Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs? |
Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2022-04-11 19:44:47 | Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs? |