From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 08:11:16 -0700
Message-ID: <20230903151116.GA3460412@nathanxps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230903100400.nbmajh4ppz5tkzff@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20230902185521.GA3414119@nathanxps13>
<20230903100400.nbmajh4ppz5tkzff@alvherre.pgsql>
On Sun, Sep 03, 2023 at 12:04:00PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2023-Sep-02, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> I ended up hacking together a (nowhere near committable) patch to see how
>> hard it would be to allow using any type with binaryheap. It doesn't seem
>> too bad.
>
> Yeah, using void * seems to lead to interfaces that are pretty much the
> same as bsearch() or qsort().
Right. This is what I had in mind.
> (Why isn't your payload type const,
> though?)
It probably should be const. This patch was just a proof-of-concept and
still requireѕ a bit of work.
> I do wonder why did you change _remove_first and _first to have a
> 'result' output argument instead of a return value. Does this change
> actually buy you anything? simplehash.h doesn't do that either.
>
>> -extern void binaryheap_add(binaryheap *heap, Datum d);
>> -extern Datum binaryheap_first(binaryheap *heap);
>> -extern Datum binaryheap_remove_first(binaryheap *heap);
>> -extern void binaryheap_replace_first(binaryheap *heap, Datum d);
>> +extern void binaryheap_add(binaryheap *heap, void *d);
>> +extern void binaryheap_first(binaryheap *heap, void *result);
>> +extern void binaryheap_remove_first(binaryheap *heap, void *result);
>> +extern void binaryheap_replace_first(binaryheap *heap, void *d);
_first could likely just return a pointer to the data in the binary heap's
array. However, _remove_first has to copy the data somewhere, so I think
the alternative would be to return a palloc'd value. Is there another way
that I'm not thinking of?
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: nathandbossart@gmail.com, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, robertmhaas@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andrew@dunslane.net, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables
In-Reply-To: <20230903151116.GA3460412@nathanxps13>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox