Hi, At Sun, 2 Oct 2016 21:43:46 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote in <cab7npqtkoyhkrbsxvvsbzcxvu9f8ot_uumxmst_awksswqa...@mail.gmail.com> > 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.)
Thanks for considering that. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers