Re: logtape.c stats don't account for unused "prefetched" block numbers
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: logtape.c stats don't account for unused "prefetched" block numbers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | aa34752723c4dd0bc97d066316f1e764e85c935c.camel@j-davis.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: logtape.c stats don't account for unused "prefetched" block numbers (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: logtape.c stats don't account for unused "prefetched" block numbers
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 14:24 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 6:37 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: > > It would be awkward if we just used nBlocksWritten within > > LogicalTapeSetBlocks() in the case where we didn't preallocate (or > > in > > all cases). Not entirely sure what to do about that just yet. > > I guess that that's the logical thing to do, as in the attached > patch. Hi Peter, In the comment in the patch, you say: "In practice this probably doesn't matter because we'll be called after the flush anyway, but be tidy." By which I assume you mean that LogicalTapeRewindForRead() will be called before LogicalTapeSetBlocks(). If that's the intention of LogicalTapeSetBlocks(), should we just make it a requirement that there are no open write buffers for any tapes when it's called? Then we could just use nBlocksWritten in both cases, right? (Aside: HashAgg calls it before LogicalTapeRewindForRead(). That might be a mistake in HashAgg where it will keep the write buffers around longer than necessary. If I recall correctly, it was my intention to rewind for reading immediately after the batch was finished, which is why I made the read buffer lazily-allocated.) Regards, Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: