From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: a fast bloat measurement tool (was Re: Measuring relation free space) |
Date: | 2014-09-25 13:57:29 |
Message-ID: | 20140925135729.GB15776@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-09-25 14:43:14 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 25 September 2014 10:41, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 2014-09-25 10:24:39 +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> >> At 2014-09-24 11:09:24 +0200, andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com wrote:
> >> > I think it's completely unacceptable to copy a visibility routine.
> >>
> >> OK. Which visibility routine should I use, and should I try to create a
> >> variant that doesn't set hint bits?
> >
> > I've not yet followed your premise that you actually need one that
> > doesn't set hint bits...
>
> Not least because I'm trying to solve a similar problem on another
> thread, so no need to make a special case here.
That's mostly unrelated though - Abhijit wants to avoid them because he
tried to avoid having *any* form of lock on the buffer. That's the
reason he tried avoid hint bit setting. Since I don't believe that's
safe (at least there's by far not enough evidence about it), there's
simply no reason to avoid it.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-09-25 14:01:31 | Re: missing isinf declaration on solaris |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-09-25 13:56:56 | Re: missing isinf declaration on solaris |