Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2021-May-14, Tom Lane wrote:
>> An idea I'd been toying with was to make invals probabilistic, that is
>> there would be X% chance of an inval being forced at any particular
>> opportunity. Then you could dial X up or down to make a tradeoff
>> between speed and the ex
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2021-05-14 16:53:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> An idea I'd been toying with was to make invals probabilistic, that is
>> there would be X% chance of an inval being forced at any particular
>> opportunity. Then you could dial X up or down to make a tradeoff
>> between spe
On 2021-May-14, Tom Lane wrote:
> An idea I'd been toying with was to make invals probabilistic, that is
> there would be X% chance of an inval being forced at any particular
> opportunity. Then you could dial X up or down to make a tradeoff
> between speed and the extent of coverage you get from
Hi,
On 2021-05-14 16:53:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > In essence, debug_invalidate_system_caches_always=1 in some important
> > aspects
> > behaves like debug_invalidate_system_caches_always=3, due to the syscache
> > involvement.
>
> Yeah. I think it's important to tes
Andres Freund writes:
> In essence, debug_invalidate_system_caches_always=1 in some important aspects
> behaves like debug_invalidate_system_caches_always=3, due to the syscache
> involvement.
Yeah. I think it's important to test those recursive invalidation
scenarios, but it could likely be don
Hi,
On 2021-05-11 19:02:00 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't think we'd loose a lot of practical coverage if we avoided
> rebuilding non-accessed relcache entries eagerly during cache
> lookups. What coverage do we e.g. gain by having a single
> SearchCatCacheMiss() triggering rebuilding the r
Hi,
On 2021-05-11 19:02:00 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Why would rebuilding non-accessed relcache entries over and over help
> with that? I am not proposing that we do not mark all cache entries are
> invalid, or that we do not rebuild tables that aren't accessed.
A slightly more concrete propo
Hi,
On 2021-05-11 19:30:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > IMO the problem largely stems from eagerly rebuilding *all* relcache entries
> > during invalidation processing.
>
> Uh, we don't do that; only for relations that are pinned, which we
> know are being used.
Sorry, all surviving relcache entrie
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2021-05-11 12:03:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In some recent threads I complained about how CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS
>> test runs have gotten markedly slower over the past couple of release
>> cycles [1][2][3].
> I wonder if the best way to attack this in a more fundamental
Hi,
On 2021-05-11 12:03:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In some recent threads I complained about how CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS
> test runs have gotten markedly slower over the past couple of release
> cycles [1][2][3].
I wonder if the best way to attack this in a more fundamental manner would be
to handl
10 matches
Mail list logo
