On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 4:12 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 3:23 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 2:34 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Okay, I think this makes sense. I think we should see the performance > > > benefit for this case as well but maybe to a bit lesser degree because > > > we will exclude some of the subtransactions from processing. > > > > I have tried with a combination of abort/commit subtransaction and I > > could see a similar benefit with the patch. > > > > I tested below transaction > > BEGIN; > > truncate table nsp_001.tbl_001; > > savepoint s1; > > truncate table nsp_001.tbl_001; > > savepoint s2; > > truncate table part_0001; > > savepoint s3; > > truncate table part_0002; > > savepoint s5; > > truncate table part_0003; > > rollback to s3; > > commit; > > EOF > > > > Thanks for the tests. The latest patch looks mostly good to me. I have > made minor changes to the patch (a) changed the order where the new > message is placed at one place to make it consistent with other > places, (b) as discussed offlist, removed the extra increment to a > local variable in ReorderBufferRestoreChange, (c) ran pgindent. > > See the attached and let me know what do you think?
The changes look good to me. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
