public inbox for [email protected]help / color / mirror / Atom feed
[PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size 2+ messages / 2 participants [nested] [flat]
* [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size @ 2020-12-01 23:20 Justin Pryzby <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Justin Pryzby @ 2020-12-01 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw) Or maybe INSERT should flush buffer based only on the *number* of tuples, and not their size ? --- src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c index 2059428e2a..04b0598183 100644 --- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c +++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c @@ -703,7 +703,13 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate, batchslot = MultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo); ExecCopySlot(batchslot, slot); - MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, 0, 0); // XXX: tuplen/lineno + MultiInsertInfoStore(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo, batchslot, + // sizeof(void*) * batchslot->tts_nvalid, /* tuple size - underestimate */ + MemoryContextMemAllocated(batchslot->tts_mcxt, true), /* tuple size */ + mtstate->ntuples); /* lineno */ + + elog(DEBUG2, "bufferedBytes %d; tuples %ld", + mtstate->miinfo->bufferedBytes, mtstate->ntuples); if (MultiInsertInfoIsFull(mtstate->miinfo)) MultiInsertInfoFlush(mtstate->miinfo, resultRelInfo); -- 2.17.0 --3yNHWXBV/QO9xKNm-- ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Remove extraneous break condition in logical slot advance function @ 2023-10-21 16:56 Gurjeet Singh <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Gurjeet Singh @ 2023-10-21 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bharath Rupireddy <[email protected]>; +Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 7:30 PM Bharath Rupireddy <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > There exists an extraneous break condition in > pg_logical_replication_slot_advance(). When the end of WAL or moveto > LSN is reached, the main while condition helps to exit the loop, so no > separate break condition is needed. Attached patch removes it. > > Thoughts? +1 for the patch. The only advantage I see of the code as it stands right now is that it avoids one last call to CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() by break'ing early. I don't think we'd lose much in terms of performance by making one (very cheap, in common case) extra call of this macro. Best regards, Gurjeet http://Gurje.et ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-10-21 16:56 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-12-01 23:20 [PATCH v9 4/4] WIP: check tuple size Justin Pryzby <[email protected]> 2023-10-21 16:56 Re: Remove extraneous break condition in logical slot advance function Gurjeet Singh <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox