From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: reducing statistics write overhead |
Date: | 2009-01-22 23:14:37 |
Message-ID: | 20090122231437.GO4296@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Euler Taveira de Oliveira escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera escreveu:
> > This could be solved if the workers kept the whole history of tables
> > that they have vacuumed. Currently we keep only a single table (the one
> > being vacuumed right now). I proposed writing these history files back
> > when workers were first implemented, but the idea was shot down before
> > flying very far because it was way too complex (the rest of the patch
> > was more than complex enough.) Maybe we can implement this now.
> >
> [I don't remember your proposal...] Isn't it just add a circular linked list
> at AutoVacuumShmemStruct? Of course some lock mechanism needs to exist to
> guarantee that we don't write at the same time. The size of this linked list
> would be scale by a startup-time-guc or a reasonable fixed value.
Well, the problem is precisely how to size the list. I don't like the
idea of keeping an arbitrary number in memory; it adds another
mostly-useless tunable that we'll need to answer questions about for all
eternity.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Emmanuel Cecchet | 2009-01-22 23:16:44 | Re: Table Partitioning Feature |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-22 23:13:18 | Re: Frames vs partitions: is SQL2008 completely insane? |