| From: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "J(dot) R(dot) Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Buffer Management |
| Date: | 2002-06-25 13:52:14 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.43.0206252239230.670-100000@angelic.cynic.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
So, while we're at it, what's the current state of people's thinking
on using mmap rather than shared memory for data file buffers? I
see some pretty powerful advantages to this approach, and I'm not
(yet :-)) convinced that the disadvantages are as bad as people think.
I think I can address most of the concerns in doc/TODO.detail/mmap.
Is this worth pursuing a bit? (I.e., should I spend an hour or two
writing up the advantages and thoughts on how to get around the
problems?) Anybody got objections that aren't in doc/TODO.detail/mmap?
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-06-25 14:09:02 | Re: Buffer Management |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-06-25 13:38:52 | Re: Reduce heap tuple header size |