Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Experimental patch for inter-page delay in VACUUM

From: Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Experimental patch for inter-page delay in VACUUM
Date: 2003-11-03 14:48:45
Message-ID: 20031103144845.GG12457@libertyrms.info (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group