Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1LXukJmA1wB0zjiwtZmweqcCoAFanmAH6N-m3UEQF_1Qw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch  (John Naylor <john.naylor@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch
Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 2:10 PM John Naylor <john.naylor@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 2:48 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I respect and will follow whatever will be the consensus after
> > discussion.  However, I request you to wait for some time to let the
> > discussion conclude.  If we can't get to an
> > agreement or one of John or me can't implement what is decided, then
> > we can anyway revert it.
>
> Agreed. I suspect the most realistic way to address most of the
> objections in a short amount of time would be to:
>
> 1. rip out the local map
> 2. restore hio.c to only checking the last block in the relation if
> there is no FSM (and lower the threshold to reduce wasted space)
> 3. reduce calls to smgr_exists()
>

Won't you need an extra call to RelationGetNumberofBlocks to find the
last block?  Also won't it be less efficient in terms of dealing with
bloat as compare to current patch?  I think if we go this route, then
we might need to revisit it in the future to optimize it, but maybe
that is the best alternative as of now.

I am thinking that we should at least give it a try to move the map to
rel cache level to see how easy or difficult it is and also let's wait
for a day or two to see if Andres/Tom has to say anything about this
or on the response by me above to improve the current patch.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Race conditions with checkpointer and shutdown
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Race conditions with checkpointer and shutdown