On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: >> You may want to add an assert in >> SyncRepGetSyncStandbysPriority and SyncRepGetSyncStandbysQuorum to be >> sure that they are getting called for the correct method. >> + /* Sort each array in descending order to get 'pos' newest element */ >> + qsort(write_array, len, sizeof(XLogRecPtr), cmp_lsn); >> + qsort(flush_array, len, sizeof(XLogRecPtr), cmp_lsn); >> + qsort(apply_array, len, sizeof(XLogRecPtr), cmp_lsn); >> There is no need to reorder things again and to use arrays, you can >> choose the newest LSNs when scanning the WalSnd entries. > > I considered it that but it depends on performance. > Current patch avoids O(N*M).
I am surprised by this statement. You would have O(N) by just discarding the oldest LSN values while holding the spinlock of each WAL sender. What SyncRepGetNNewestSyncRecPtr looks for are just the newest apply, write and flush positions. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
