On 18/04/17 18:14, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 4/18/17 11:59, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> Hmm if we create hashtable for this, I'd say create hashtable for the >> whole table_states then. The reason why it's list now was that it seemed >> unnecessary to have hashtable when it will be empty almost always but >> there is no need to have both hashtable + list IMHO. > > The difference is that we blow away the list of states when the catalog > changes, but we keep the hash table with the start times around. We > need two things with different life times. >
Why can't we just update the hashtable based on the catalog? I mean once the record is not needed in the list, the table has been synced so there is no need for the timestamp either since we'll not try to start the worker again. -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
