Tom Lane kirjutas P, 02.11.2003 kell 20:00:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > I am currently looking at implementing ARC as a replacement strategy. I
> > don't have anything that works yet, so I can't really tell what the
> > result would be and it might turn out that we want both features.
> It's likely that we would. As someone (you?) already pointed out,
> VACUUM has bad side-effects both in terms of cache flushing and in
> terms of sheer I/O load. Those effects require different fixes AFAICS.
> One thing that bothers me here is that I don't see how adjusting our
> own buffer replacement strategy is going to do much of anything when
> we cannot control the kernel's buffer replacement strategy.
At least for OpenSource/Free OS'es it would probably be possible to
persuade kernel developers to give the needed control to userspace apps.
So the "take over all RAM" is not the only option ;)
> To get any
> real traction we'd have to go back to the "take over most of RAM for
> shared buffers" approach, which we already know to have a bunch of
> severe disadvantages.
> regards, tom lane
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-11-02 23:06:45|
|Subject: Re: Avoiding SIGPIPE (was Re: OSDL DBT-2 w/ PostgreSQL |
|Previous:||From: Fabrizio Mazzoni||Date: 2003-11-02 22:42:28|
|Subject: pgsql crosstab function|