On Tuesday, September 29, 2020 10:35 AM, Horiguchi-san wrote:
> FWIW, I (and maybe Amit) am thinking that the property we need here is not it
> is cached or not but the accuracy of the returned file length, and that the
> "cached" property should be hidden behind the API.
>
> Another reason for not adding this function is the cached value is not really
> reliable on non-recovery environment.
>
> > So in the new function, it goes something like:
> > if (InRecovery)
> > {
> > if (reln->smgr_cached_nblocks[forknum] !=
> InvalidBlockNumber)
> > return reln->smgr_cached_nblocks[forknum];
> > else
> > return InvalidBlockNumber;
> > }
>
> If we add the new function, it should reutrn InvalidBlockNumber without
> consulting smgr_nblocks().
So here's how I revised it
smgrcachednblocks(SMgrRelation reln, ForkNumber forknum)
{
if (InRecovery)
{
if (reln->smgr_cached_nblocks[forknum] != InvalidBlockNumber)
return reln->smgr_cached_nblocks[forknum];
}
return InvalidBlockNumber;
> Hmm. The current loop in DropRelFileNodeBuffers looks like this:
>
> if (InRecovery)
> for (for each forks)
> if (the fork meets the criteria)
> <optimized dropping>
> else
> <full scan>
>
> I think this is somewhat different from the current discussion. Whether we
> sum-up the number of blcoks for all forks or just use that of the main fork, we
> should take full scan if we failed to know the accurate size for any one of the
> forks. (In other words, it is stupid that we run a full scan for more than one
> fork at a
> drop.)
>
> Come to think of that, we can naturally sum-up all forks' blocks since anyway
> we need to call smgrnblocks for all forks to know the optimzation is usable.
I understand. We really don't have to enter the optimization when we know the
file size is inaccurate. That also makes the patch simpler.
> So that block would be something like this:
>
> for (forks of the rel)
> /* the function returns InvalidBlockNumber if !InRecovery */
> if (smgrnblocks returned InvalidBlockNumber)
> total_blocks = InvalidBlockNumber;
> break;
> total_blocks += nbloks of this fork
>
> /* <we could rely on the fact that InvalidBlockNumber is zero> */
> if (total_blocks != InvalidBlockNumber && total_blocks < threshold)
> for (forks of the rel)
> for (blocks of the fork)
> <try dropping the buffer for the block>
> else
> <full scan dropping>
I followed this logic in the attached patch.
Thank you very much for the thoughtful reviews.
Performance measurement for large shared buffers to follow.
Best regards,
Kirk Jamison
