Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZ54E0w5vCXYRAFKnunZy_SKB-4rbFq+7L=qUgFUYdtfQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()?  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Responses Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()?
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 7:31 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> Another option might be to just change the hash indexing code to follow
> the correct protocol, locking and calling MarkBufferDirty() in those 3
> call sites. Marking the buffer dirty is easy, but making sure that it's
> locked might require some refactoring. Robert, would following the
> right protocol here affect performance?

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking whether
dirtying buffers unnecessarily might be slower than not doing that?

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)"
Date:
Subject: RE: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner