From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Acclerating INSERT/UPDATE using UPS |
Date: | 2007-02-26 14:44:01 |
Message-ID: | 200702261444.l1QEi1h03479@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
> > A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, kawasima(at)cs(dot)tsukuba(dot)ac(dot)jp (Hideyuki Kawashima) wrote:
> >> I appreciate your great suggestion!
> >> It is great honor for me if Sigres will be merged to PostgreSQL.
> >> Since the changes of Sigres from PostgreSQL-8.2.1 are not many,
> >> and moreover, all of changes are surrounded with #ifdef SIGRES --- #endif,
> >> incorporating Sigres into PostgreSQL would be easy.
> >
> > You should consider submitting a patch for this against CVS HEAD.
> >
> > And actually, I'd think it a better idea to define a GUC variable and
> > use that to control whether Sigres is active or not.
> >
> > At the more sophisticated end of the spectrum, you might set things up
> > so that it could be activated/deactivated at runtime by a superuser.
> >
> > At the less sophisticated end, it might need to be configured in
> > postgresql.conf...
>
> Whatever happen with this?
I would like to see more analysis about why Sigres is faster than an
in-memory file system. I think the idea was that locking was reduced
but I am unclear on why locking is different in the two cases.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | mark | 2007-02-26 14:57:07 | Re: SCMS question |
Previous Message | Devrim GUNDUZ | 2007-02-26 13:57:02 | Re: [HACKERS] urgent: upgraded to 8.2, getting kernel panics |