On 04/04/2012 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan<and...@dunslane.net> writes:
On 04/02/2012 01:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
When I said "list", I meant a "List *". No fixed size.
Ok, like this?
I think this could use a bit of editorialization (I don't think the
"stripe" terminology is still applicable, in particular), but the
general idea seems OK.
Does anyone feel that it's a bad idea that list entries are never
reclaimed? In the worst case a transient load peak could result in
a long list that permanently adds search overhead. Not sure if it's
worth the extra complexity to delete a list cell that's no longer
needed, rather than leaving it present and empty.
Me either. The logic could possibly be something simple when we free a
node like "while the list tail is an available node prune the tail". But
as you say, it might not be worth it.
Do we consider this a bug fix, to be backpatched?
Yes, definitely.
I think I'd like to have a go at coding it the other way (with
release of list entries), just to see if that comes out cleaner
or uglier than this way. If you don't mind I'll pick this up
and commit whichever way turns out better.
Go for it.
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
