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

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1KtnMrX+eh+2yHCFQ-Ns7O+jj_ukiy2zajwuXnNwNT8xQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist  ("k.jamison@fujitsu.com" <k.jamison@fujitsu.com>)
Responses Re: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 2:34 PM k.jamison@fujitsu.com
<k.jamison@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, November 12, 2020 1:14 PM, Tsunakawa-san wrote:
> I forgot to reply.
> Thank you very much Tsunakawa-san for testing and to everyone
> who has provided their reviews and insights as well.
>
> Now thinking about smgrnblocks(), currently Thomas Munro is also working on implementing a
> shared SmgrRelation [1] to store sizes. However, since that is still under development and the
> discussion is still ongoing, I hope we can first commit these set of patches here as these are already
> in committable form. I think it's alright to accept the early improvements implemented in this thread
> to the source code.
>

Yeah, that won't be a bad idea especially because the patch being
discussed in the thread you referred is still in an exploratory phase.
I haven't tested or done a detailed review but I feel there shouldn't
be many problems if we agree on the approach.

Thomas/others, do you have objections to proceeding here? It shouldn't
be a big problem to change the code in this area even if we get the
shared relation size stuff in.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Antonin Houska
Date:
Subject: Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs
Next
From: a.pervushina@postgrespro.ru
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed