On 2023-03-22 09:58:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 1:12 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > Patch with the two minimal fixes attached. As we don't know whether it's
> > worth
> > changing the strategy, the more minimal fixes seem more appropriate.
>
> LGTM.
Thanks for checking.
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 1:12 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> Patch with the two minimal fixes attached. As we don't know whether it's worth
> changing the strategy, the more minimal fixes seem more appropriate.
LGTM.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hi,
On 2023-03-21 09:34:14 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-03-21 11:33:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > That feels like it would be slightly more rational behavior,
> > but I'm not smart enough to guess whether anyone would actually be
> > happier (or less happy) after such a change than
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 12:34 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> More generally, I still think we need logic to use unused buffers even when
> strategies are in use
Yep.
> (my current theory is that we wouldn't increase the
> usagecount when strategies use unused buffers, so they can be replaced more
>
Hi,
On 2023-03-21 11:33:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 3:01 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > Easy enough to fix and shows clear improvement. One thing I wonder is if
> > it's
> > worth moving the strategies up one level? Probaly not, but ...
>
> Hmm, so share a strategy
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 3:01 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> While hacking on my relation extension patch I found two issues with WAL_LOG:
>
> 1) RelationCopyStorageUsingBuffer() doesn't free the used strategies. This
>means we'll use #relations * ~10k memory
Woops.
> 2)
Hi,
While hacking on my relation extension patch I found two issues with WAL_LOG:
1) RelationCopyStorageUsingBuffer() doesn't free the used strategies. This
means we'll use #relations * ~10k memory
2) RelationCopyStorageUsingBuffer() gets the buffer for the target relation
with
