On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 22:39 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't think its really slower. Earlier the code took WalInsertLock
> everytime, even if we ended up not logging anything. Thats far more
> epensive than a single spinlock. And the copy should also only be taken
> in the case we need to log. So I think we end up ahead of the current
> state.
Good point.
> > The code looks good to me except that we should be consistent about the
> > page hole -- XLogCheckBuffer is calculating it, but then we copy the
> > entire page. I don't think anything can change the size of the page hole
> > while we have a shared lock on the buffer, so it seems OK to skip the
> > page hole during the copy.
>
> I don't think it can change either, but I doubt that there's a
> performance advantage by not copying the hole. I'd guess the simpler
> code ends up faster.
I was thinking more about the WAL size, but I don't have a strong
opinion.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
