On 2 February 2012 01:40, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
