On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Hello, > > At Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:59:55 +0900, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote in > <cab7npqt5x05tg7aut1yz+wjn76dqnz1jzq46fsftee4yby0...@mail.gmail.com> >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI >> <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> > Hello, I return to this before my things:) >> > >> > Though I haven't played with the patch yet.. >> >> Be sure to run the test cases in the patch or base your tests on them then! > > All items of 006_truncate_opt fail on ed0b228 and they are fixed > with the patch. > >> > Though I don't know how it actually impacts the perfomance, it >> > seems to me that we can live with truncated_to and sync_above in >> > RelationData and BufferNeedsWAL(rel, buf) instead of >> > HeapNeedsWAL(rel, buf). Anyway up to one entry for one relation >> > seems to exist at once in the hash. >> >> TBH, I still think that the design of this patch as proposed is pretty >> cool and easy to follow. > > It is clean from certain viewpoint but additional hash, > especially hash-searching on every HeapNeedsWAL seems to me to be > unacceptable. Do you see it accetable? > > > The attached patch is quiiiccck-and-dirty-hack of Michael's patch > just as a PoC of my proposal quoted above. This also passes the > 006 test. The major changes are the following. > > - Moved sync_above and truncted_to into RelationData. > > - Cleaning up is done in AtEOXact_cleanup instead of explicit > calling to smgrDoPendingSyncs(). > > * BufferNeedsWAL (replace of HeapNeedsWAL) no longer requires > hash_search. It just refers to the additional members in the > given Relation. > > X I feel that I have dropped one of the features of the origitnal > patch during the hack, but I don't recall it clearly now:( > > X I haven't consider relfilenode replacement, which didn't matter > for the original patch. (but there's few places to consider). > > What do you think about this?
I have moved this patch to next CF. (I still need to look at your patch.) -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
