Re: MultiXact\SLRU buffers configuration

From: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gilles Darold <gilles(at)darold(dot)net>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: MultiXact\SLRU buffers configuration
Date: 2022-02-20 07:35:06
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 20 Feb 2022, at 02:42, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2022-02-20 10:38:53 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> Back to this patch: assuming we can settle on a good-enough-for-now
>> replacement algorithm, do we want to add this set of 7 GUCs? Does
>> anyone else want to weigh in on that?
> I'm -0.2 on it, given that we have a better path forward.
That’s a really good path forward, but it's discussed at least for 3.5 years[0]. And guaranteed not to be there until 2023. Gilles, Shawn, Dmitry expressed their opinion in lines with that the patch “is a must-have” referring to real pathological performance degradation inflicted by SLRU cache starvation. And I can remember dozen of other incidents that would not happen if the patch was applied, e.g. this post is referring to the patch as a cure [1].

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.


In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Pyhalov 2022-02-20 08:02:02 Re: postgres_fdw and skip locked
Previous Message John Naylor 2022-02-20 06:29:10 Re: use rotate macro in more places