On 04/02/2012 12:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan<and...@dunslane.net> writes:
On 04/02/2012 12:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
This seems like it isn't actually fixing the problem, only pushing out
the onset of trouble a bit. Should we not replace the fixed-size array
with a dynamic data structure?
But maybe your're right. If we do that and stick with my two-dimensional
scheme to keep the number of probes per chunk down, we'd need to reorg
the array every time we increased it. That might be a bit messy, but
might be ok. Or maybe linearly searching an array of several hundred
slots for our pid for every log chunk that comes in would be fast enough.
You could do something like having a list of pending chunks for each
value of (pid mod 256). The length of each such list ought to be plenty
short under ordinary circumstances.
Yeah, ok, that should work. How big would we make each list to start
with? Still 20, or smaller?
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
