On 2 February 2012 01:40, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, I guess the trade-off here is that, since sinval messages aren't
>> processed immediately, we often won't notice the VM extension until
>> the next statement starts, whereas with the current implementation, we
>> notice it right away. On the other hand, noticing it right away is
>> costing us a system call or two per tuple. So on further thought, I
>> think we should do this.
>
Yes, that's a nice summary.
> Patch committed. I moved the smgr inval to after the actual extension
> is done, which seems superior, and adjusted the comments slightly.
>
Thanks.
Regards,
Dean
