On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 01:00:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

I know there are severe disadvantages in the current implementation,
but are there in-principle severe disadvantages?  Or are you speaking
more generally, like "maintainability of code", "someone has to look
after all that buffering optimisation", "potential for about 10
trillion bugs", &c.?

A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>                              M2P 2A8
                                         +1 416 646 3304 x110

In response to

• Re: Experimental patch for inter-page delay in VACUUM at 2003-11-02 18:00:35 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Experimental patch for inter-page delay in VACUUM at 2003-11-03 15:47:04 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Matthew T. O'Connor	Date: 2003-11-03 14:57:54
	Subject: Re: Experimental patch for inter-page delay in VACUUM
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2003-11-03 14:38:23
	Subject: Re: adding support for posix_fadvise()