Re: Recovery performance of standby for multiple concurrenttruncates on large tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Recovery performance of standby for multiple concurrenttruncates on large tables
Date
Msg-id 20180730201536.o47bxmhlrs7mlquf@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Recovery performance of standby for multiple concurrent truncateson large tables  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2018-07-30 16:01:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> (1) Limit the number of deferred drops to a reasonably small number
> (one cache line?  1kB?).

Yea, you'd have to, because we'd frequently need to check it, and it'd
need to be in shared memory. But that'd still leave us to regress to
O(n^2) as soon as a transaction goes over that limit - which I don't
think is that infrequent...

Greetings,

Andres Freund


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Recovery performance of standby for multiple concurrent truncateson large tables
Next
From: 'Andres Freund'
Date:
Subject: Re: Recovery performance of standby for multiple concurrenttruncates on large tables