Re: Eliminating PD_ALL_VISIBLE, take 2

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robins <robins(at)pobox(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Eliminating PD_ALL_VISIBLE, take 2
Date: 2013-07-01 17:21:33
Message-ID: 1372699293.19747.69.camel@jdavis
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, 2013-06-30 at 22:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I thought that Jeff withdrew this patch.

No -- was there a reason you thought that? I know it could use another
round of testing before commit, and there may be a couple other things
to clear up. But I don't want to invest a lot of time there right now,
because, as I understand it, you still object to the patch anyway.

I am still not entirely clear on the objections to this patch:

1. Contention was a concern, but I believe I have mitigated it. Strictly
speaking, additional pins may be acquired, but the cost of those pin
operations will be spread over a lot of other work.

2. There are quite a few different ideas about where we're going with
PD_ALL_VISIBLE and freezing, but it seems like removing PD_ALL_VISIBLE
is potentially compatible with most of them.

Any others?

The patch reduces code complexity and reduces writes during a data load.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2013-07-01 17:41:16 Re: Outputting UTC offset with to_char()
Previous Message 'Bruce Momjian' 2013-07-01 17:15:11 Re: Minor inheritance/check bug: Inconsistent behavior