| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gan Jiadong <ganjd(at)huawei(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, liyuesen(at)huawei(dot)com, yaoyiyu(at)huawei(dot)com, liuxingyu(at)huawei(dot)com, tianwengang(at)huawei(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: About the performance of startup after dropping many tables |
| Date: | 2011-02-18 14:55:04 |
| Message-ID: | 21029.1298040904@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Possibly, but it's not necessarily a bad idea to improve performance
> for people with crazy schemas.
It is if it introduces unmaintainable code. I see no way to collapse
multiple drop operations into one that's not going to be a Rube Goldberg
device. I'm especially unwilling to introduce such a thing into the
xlog replay code paths, where it's guaranteed to get little testing.
(BTW, it seems like a workaround for the OP is just to CHECKPOINT right
after dropping all those tables. Or even reconsider their shutdown
procedure.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2011-02-18 15:02:38 | Re: Fix for Index Advisor related hooks |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-02-18 14:28:26 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Separate messages for standby replies and hot standby feedback. |