"Bossart, Nathan" writes:
> On 5/30/21, 10:22 AM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>> We can do a lot better, by exploiting what we know about the usage
>> patterns of invalidation requests.
> I spent some time looking through this patch, and it seems reasonable
> to me.
Thanks for reviewing!
>> There is one
On 5/30/21, 10:22 AM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
> We can do a lot better, by exploiting what we know about the usage
> patterns of invalidation requests. New requests are always added to
> the latest sublist, and the only management actions are (1) merge
> latest sublist into next-to-latest sublist, or (
I wrote:
> It turns out that the existing implementation in inval.c is quite
> inefficient when a lot of individual commands each register just
> a few invalidations --- but a few invalidations per command is
> pretty typical.
Per the cfbot, here's a rebase over 3788c6678 (actually just
undoing it
I got interested in $SUBJECT as a result of the thread at [1].
It turns out that the existing implementation in inval.c is quite
inefficient when a lot of individual commands each register just
a few invalidations --- but a few invalidations per command is
pretty typical. As an example, consider
