On 12/3/18, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 9:46 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:07 PM John Naylor <jcnay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>>
> v8 code:
> +fsm_local_set(Relation rel, BlockNumber new_nblocks)
> +{
> + BlockNumber blkno,
> + cached_target_block;
> +
> + /*
> + * Mark blocks available starting after the last block number we have
> + * cached, and ending at the current last block in the relation.
> + * When we first set the map, this will flag all blocks as available
> + * to try. If we reset the map while waiting for a relation
> + * extension lock, this will only flag new blocks as available,
> + * if any were created by another backend.
> + */
> + for (blkno = fsm_local_map.nblocks; blkno < new_nblocks; blkno++)
> + fsm_local_map.map[blkno] = FSM_LOCAL_AVAIL;
>
> v9 code:
> +static void
> +fsm_local_set(Relation rel, BlockNumber nblocks)
> +{
> + BlockNumber blkno,
> + cached_target_block;
> +
> + for (blkno = 0; blkno < nblocks; blkno++)
> + fsm_local_map.map[blkno] = FSM_LOCAL_AVAIL;
>
> What is the reason for the above code change in the latest patch version?
Per your recent comment, we no longer check relation size if we waited
on a relation extension lock, so this is essentially a reversion to an
earlier version. Keeping v8 would have the advantage that it'd be
simple to change our minds about this. Do you have an opinion about
that?
> It would be good if you add few comments atop functions
> GetPageWithFreeSpace, RecordAndGetPageWithFreeSpace and
> RecordPageWithFreeSpace about their interaction with local map.
Good idea, will do.
-John Naylor
