On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 1:52 PM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 03:26:32PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> That's reasonable. radixtree already forbids mutations concurrent with
> iteration, so there's no new concurrency hazard. One alternative is
> per_buffer_data big enough for MaxOffsetNumber, but that might thrash caches
> measurably. That patch is good to go apart from these trivialities:
Thanks! I have pushed that patch, without those changes you didn't like.
Here's are Melanie's patches again. They work, and the WAL flush
frequency problem is mostly gone since we increased the BAS_VACUUM
default ring size (commit 98f320eb), but I'm still looking into how
this read-ahead and the write-behind generated by vacuum (using
patches not yet posted) should interact with each other and the ring
system, and bouncing ideas around about that with my colleagues. More
on that soon, hopefully. I suspect that there won't be changes to
these patches as a result, but I still want to hold off for a bit.