On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Sorry, what I have just sent was broken.
You can use PROVE_TESTS when running make check to select a subset of tests you want to run. I use that all the time when working on patches dedicated to certain code paths. >> - Relation has new members no_pending_sync and pending_sync that >> works as instant cache of an entry in pendingSync hash. >> - Commit-time synchronizing is restored as Michael's patch. >> - If relfilenode is replaced, pending_sync for the old node is >> removed. Anyway this is ignored on abort and meaningless on >> commit. >> - TAP test is renamed to 012 since some new files have been added. >> >> Accessing pending sync hash occurred on every calling of >> HeapNeedsWAL() (per insertion/update/freeze of a tuple) if any of >> accessing relations has pending sync. Almost of them are >> eliminated as the result. Did you actually test this patch? One of the logs added makes the tests a long time to run: 2017-04-13 12:11:27.065 JST  t/102_vacuumdb_stages.pl STATEMENT: ANALYZE; 2017-04-13 12:12:25.766 JST  LOG: BufferNeedsWAL: pendingSyncs = 0x0, no_pending_sync = 0 - lsn = XLogInsert(RM_SMGR_ID, - XLOG_SMGR_TRUNCATE | XLR_SPECIAL_REL_UPDATE); + rel->no_pending_sync= false; + rel->pending_sync = pending; + } It seems to me that those flags and the pending_sync data should be kept in the context of backend process and not be part of the Relation data... +void +RecordPendingSync(Relation rel) I don't think that I agree that this should be part of relcache.c. The syncs are tracked should be tracked out of the relation context. Seeing how invasive this change is, I would also advocate for this patch as only being a HEAD-only change, not many people are complaining about this optimization of TRUNCATE missing when wal_level = minimal, and this needs a very careful review. Should I code something? Or Horiguchi-san, would you take care of it? The previous crash I saw has been taken care of, but it's been really some time since I looked at this patch... -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers