| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(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 01:01:49 |
| Message-ID: | 87k5gv4gaq.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Greg,
>
>> 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. That would open the door to having
>> these parameters be dynamically adjustable. That alone would be worthwhile
>> even if we bypass all bells and whistles of the buffer manager.
>>
>
> One hitch, though, is that asynchronous commit could consume big chunks of
> shared_buffers. So we might still need a limit for people who are using async.
Well currently we use a fixed number of fixed-sized buffers, no? I doubt we'll
change that even if we take this tact of making wal_buffers resizable by
stealing buffers from the buffer manager for precisely the reasons Tom was
describing.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-12 01:02:20 | Re: Overhauling GUCS |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-12 00:56:24 | Re: Overhauling GUCS |