Re: unnecessary code in_bt_split
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: unnecessary code in_bt_split |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 15674.1217807073@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | unnecessary code in_bt_split (Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM>) |
Ответы |
Re: unnecessary code in_bt_split
Re: unnecessary code in_bt_split |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes: > I found that _bt_split function calls PageGetTempPage, but next call is > _bt_page_init which clear all contents anyway. Is there any reason to call > PageGetTempPage instead of palloc? Not violating a perfectly good abstraction? I agree that PageGetTempPage isn't amazingly efficient, but internal refactoring would halve its cost; and if you have some evidence that there's a real performance issue then we could think about adjusting the temp-page API to allow _bt_pageinit to be combined with it. But I have a real problem with hacking up _bt_split so that it will call PageRestoreTempPage on something it didn't get from PageGetTempPage. Considering the WAL and regular I/O that will be induced by a split, I kinda doubt this is even worth worrying about anyway... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: