Re: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kyotaro Horiguchi
Subject Re: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist
Date
Msg-id 20201208.141128.1413350789627617933.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist
List pgsql-hackers
At Tue, 8 Dec 2020 08:08:25 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote in 
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 7:24 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We drop
> > buffers for the old relfilenode on truncation anyway.
> >
> > What I did is:
> >
> > a: Create a physical replication pair.
> > b: On the master, create a table. (without explicitly starting a tx)
> > c: On the master, insert a tuple into the table.
> > d: On the master truncate the table.
> >
> > On the standby, smgrnblocks is called for the old relfilenode of the
> > table at c, then the same function is called for the same relfilenode
> > at d and the function takes the cached path.
> >
> 
> This is on the lines I have tried for recovery. So, it seems we are in
> agreement that we can use the 'cached' flag in
> DropRelFileNodesAllBuffers and it will take the optimized path in many
> such cases, right?


Mmm. There seems to be a misunderstanding.. What I opposed to is
referring only to InRecovery and ignoring the value of "cached".

The remaining issue is we don't get to the optimized path when a
standby makes the first call to smgrnblocks() when truncating a
relation. Still we can get to the optimized path as far as any
update(+insert) or select is performed earlier on the relation so I
think it doesn't matter so match.

But I'm not sure what others think.

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiro Ikeda
Date:
Subject: About to add WAL write/fsync statistics to pg_stat_wal view
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?