On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Thomas Munro > <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Thomas Munro >> <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> I think we should take the hint in the comments and make it O(1) >>> anyway. See attached draft patch. >> >> Alternatively, here is a shorter and sweeter dlist version (I did the >> open-coded one thinking of theoretical back-patchability). > > ... though, on second thoughts, the dlist version steam-rolls over the > possibility that it might not be in the list (mentioned in the > comments, though it's not immediately clear how that would happen). > > On further reflection, on the basis that it's the most conservative > change, +1 for Fujii-san's close-in-reverse-order idea. We should > reconsider that data structure for 12
+1 Attached is v3 patch which I implemented close-in-reverse-order idea on v2. Regards, -- Fujii Masao
speedup_relation_deletes_during_recovery_v3.patch
Description: Binary data
