From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |
Date: | 2015-04-21 20:32:45 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZm7Gi_QX27+58DNDtYtpAX6Z=+NotHiT5STBe+yNitoA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2015-04-21 16:21:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> All that having been said, I don't think adding a new fork is a good
>> approach. We already have problems pretty commonly where our
>> customers complain about running out of inodes. Adding another fork
>> for every table would exacerbate that problem considerably.
>
> Really? These days? There's good arguments against another fork
> (increased number of fsyncs, more stat calls, increased number of file
> handles, more WAL logging, ...), but the number of inodes themselves
> seems like something halfway recent filesystems should handle.
Not making it up...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-04-21 20:36:09 | Re: Replication identifiers, take 4 |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-04-21 20:27:58 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |