Re: bug in SignalSomeChildren
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: bug in SignalSomeChildren |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | AANLkTi=MfQaNbEriv5O=1G7MrKwRwbuJ28vtST9+hYZC@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: bug in SignalSomeChildren (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: bug in SignalSomeChildren
Re: bug in SignalSomeChildren |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> I think the attached might be a little tidier. Thoughts? > > I'm not really thrilled at the idea of calling > IsPostmasterChildWalSender for every child whether or not it will have > any impact on the decision. That involves touching shared memory which > can be rather expensive (see previous discussions about shared cache > lines and so forth). The existing code already does that, unless I'm missing something. We could improve on my proposed patch a bit by doing the is_autovacuum test first and the walsender test second. I'm not sure how to improve on it beyond that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: