Re: inefficient loop in StandbyReleaseLockList()
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: inefficient loop in StandbyReleaseLockList() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1376384.1635862908@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: inefficient loop in StandbyReleaseLockList() (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: inefficient loop in StandbyReleaseLockList()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> writes: > At Mon, 01 Nov 2021 18:01:18 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in >> So what I did in the attached is add a "canceled" flag to >> PendingUnlinkEntry, which lets us deal with canceled or finished >> entries without having to delete them from the list right away. >> Then we only need to physically clean up the list once per >> SyncPostCheckpoint call. > We don't loop over so many canceled elements usually so I think it > works well. However, shouldn't we consider canceled before checking > cycle_ctr? Good point. I was thinking that it's best to break out of the loop at the first opportunity. But if the first few entries with the next cycle_ctr value are canceled, it's best to advance over them in the current SyncPostCheckpoint call. It saves nothing to postpone that work to later, and indeed adds a few cycles by leaving more data to be copied by list_delete_first_n. Will change it. > I feel that we might need to wipe_mem for the memmove case as well > (together with list_delete_nth_cell) but that is another thing even if > that's correct. Hm. I made this function by copying-and-modifying list_delete_nth_cell, so if there's something wrong there then this code inherited it. But I don't think it's wrong. The wipe_mem business is only intended to be used when enabling expensive debug options. > Otherwise it looks good to me. Thanks for looking! regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: