pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>
Cc: Shubham Khanna <khannashubham1197@gmail.com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Improve eviction algorithm in ReorderBuffer
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 08:30:22 +0300
Message-ID: <91098347-c594-486d-9c19-26481125a399@iki.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZhYZdLN3pqueAO2A@paquier.xyz>
References: <CAD21AoAd7ZUz1SVKc+WNqNcTJdBZOBUeV_iExyzqk8WLyoNy1A@mail.gmail.com>
	<f13d88915e7e197ccb78968a825d1c021f62c8ce.camel@j-davis.com>
	<CAD21AoCfP++VF+12Za7SV_vQpRpFbe+Kf_LQsRPAw_pJj0YS3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<cecac19e0fb5739d4fd955000d19d88d060924d4.camel@j-davis.com>
	<CAD21AoAtR2A4f1-JFUE9KRkiPqMRvxS+3W=ZR7FpuXm8VSVASQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<791d98f474e518387d09eb390b8a12f265d130cc.camel@j-davis.com>
	<8cb6bbf6-57e7-4d14-9664-89505993afaa@iki.fi>
	<10f5dcecb5224c9967a7d595b6168a4144ffc24e.camel@j-davis.com>
	<ZhYD5MhjwzrPHwvu@paquier.xyz>
	<4ce8dd017b911e8b2772147992db468deed71896.camel@j-davis.com>
	<ZhYZdLN3pqueAO2A@paquier.xyz>

On 10/04/2024 07:45, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 09:16:53PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> On Wed, 2024-04-10 at 12:13 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Wouldn't the best way forward be to revert
>>> 5bec1d6bc5e3 and revisit the whole in v18?
>>
>> Also consider commits b840508644 and bcb14f4abc.
> 
> Indeed.  These are also linked.

I don't feel the urge to revert this:

- It's not broken as such, we're just discussing better ways to 
implement it. We could also do nothing, and revisit this in v18. The 
only must-fix issue is some compiler warnings IIUC.

- It's a pretty localized change in reorderbuffer.c, so it's not in the 
way of other patches or reverts. Nothing else depends on the binaryheap 
changes yet either.

- It seems straightforward to repeat the performance tests with whatever 
alternative implementations we want to consider.

My #1 choice would be to write a patch to switch the pairing heap, 
performance test that, and revert the binary heap changes.

-- 
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)






view thread (93+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <91098347-c594-486d-9c19-26481125a399@iki.fi>
Permalink:  ../91098347-c594-486d-9c19-26481125a399@iki.fi/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/91098347-c594-486d-9c19-26481125a399@iki.fi

 · 

reply
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: hlinnaka@iki.fi, michael@paquier.xyz, pgsql@j-davis.com, sawada.mshk@gmail.com, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, vignesh21@gmail.com, smithpb2250@gmail.com, tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com, kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com, khannashubham1197@gmail.com, dilipbalaut@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Improve eviction algorithm in ReorderBuffer
  In-Reply-To: <91098347-c594-486d-9c19-26481125a399@iki.fi>

* 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