From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Compression of full-page-writes |
Date: | 2014-12-12 13:23:36 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaVhLrAKvOcsmLVDQyeXBfc77r1gQp_7VX=XCvNz1X5iA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> > * parameter should be SUSET - it doesn't *need* to be set only at
>> > server start since all records are independent of each other
>>
>> Why not USERSET? There's no point in trying to prohibit users from
>> doing things that will cause bad performance because they can do that
>> anyway.
>
> Using SUSET or USERSET has a small memory cost: we should
> unconditionally palloc the buffers containing the compressed data
> until WAL is written out. We could always call an equivalent of
> InitXLogInsert when this parameter is updated but that would be
> bug-prone IMO and it does not plead in favor of code simplicity.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-12-12 13:27:59 | Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-12-12 13:19:59 | Re: PATCH: hashjoin - gracefully increasing NTUP_PER_BUCKET instead of batching |