| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Robert Treat" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhauling GUCS |
| Date: | 2008-06-12 01:02:20 |
| Message-ID: | 25597.1213232540@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I agree with that for pg_clog and friends, but I'm much more leery of
>> folding WAL into the same framework.
> Well it may still be worthwhile stealing buffers from shared_buffers even if
> we set a special flag marking them as owned by WAL and out of bounds for
> the normal buffer manager.
> At least that way we could always steal more if we want or return some, as
> long as we're careful about when we do it.
... and as long as you can acquire the WAL per-buffer management space out
of nowhere ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-06-12 01:14:57 | Re: cannot use result of (insert..returning) |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-06-12 01:01:49 | Re: Overhauling GUCS |