On 30 May 2012 12:10, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hmm, we do this in smgrDoPendingDeletes:
>
> for (i = 0; i <= MAX_FORKNUM; i++)
> {
> smgrdounlink(srel, i, false);
> }
>
> So we drop the buffers for each relation fork separately, which means that
> we scan the buffer pool four times. Relation forks in 8.4 introduced that
> issue, and 9.1 made it worse by adding another fork for unlogged tables.
> With some refactoring, we could scan the buffer pool just once. That would
> help a lot.
That struck me as a safe and easy optimisation. This was a problem I'd
been trying to optimise for 9.2, so I've written a patch that appears
simple and clean enough to be applied directly.
> Also, I wonder if DropRelFileNodeBuffers() could scan the pool without
> grabbing the spinlocks on every buffer? It could do an unlocked test first,
> and only grab the spinlock on buffers that need to be dropped.
Sounds less good and we'd need reasonable proof it actually did
anything useful without being dangerous.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
dropallforks.v1.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
