Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I'm still not very happy with any of the options here.
> BAS is great if you didn't want to trash the cache, but its also
> annoying to people that really did want to load a large table into
> cache. However we set it, we're going to have problems because not
> everybody has the same database.
That argument leads immediately to the conclusion that you need
per-table control over the behavior. Which maybe you do, but it's
far too late to be proposing it for 8.3. We should put this whole
area of more-control-over-BAS-and-syncscan on the TODO agenda.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-01-30 17:41:47|
|Subject: Re: Will PostgreSQL get ported to CUDA? |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-01-30 17:19:22|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2008-01-30 17:46:19|
|Subject: Truncate Triggers|
|Previous:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2008-01-30 17:22:20|
|Subject: Bitmap index scan preread using posix_fadvise (Was: There's random access and then there's random access)|