Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes
Date
Msg-id 14060.1342548070@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> I had thought that we might get a performance boost here by saving fsync
> queue traffic, but I see that md.c was already not calling
> register_dirty_segment for temp rels, so there's no joy there.

Actually, wait a second.  We were smart enough to not send fsync
requests in the first place for temp rels.  But we were not smart enough
to not call ForgetRelationFsyncRequests when deleting a temp rel,
which made for an entirely useless scan through the pending-fsyncs
table.  So there could be win there, on top of not forwarding the actual
unlink operation.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: several problems in pg_receivexlog
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: pl/perl and utf-8 in sql_ascii databases