Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+TgmoYfQeBXzXZ6wzJxLb8f01im4YAG216Doav+fAJ130rPwA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > I think we should not consider doing compression and decompression as > free at this point in code, because we hold a buffer lock during > recheck. Buffer locks are meant for short-term locks (it is even > mentioned in storage/buffer/README), doing all the > compression/decompression/detoast stuff under these locks doesn't > sound advisable to me. It can block many concurrent operations. Compression and decompression might cause performance problems, but try to access the TOAST table would be fatal; that probably would have deadlock hazards among other problems. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: