From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
Date: | 2009-08-13 21:33:00 |
Message-ID: | 1250199180.24981.35.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
[ moving to -hackers ]
If this topic has been discussed previously, please point me to the
earlier threads.
Why aren't we more opportunistic about freezing tuples? For instance, if
we already have a dirty buffer in cache, we should be more aggressive
about freezing those tuples than freezing tuples on disk.
I looked at the code, and it looks like if we freeze one tuple on the
page during VACUUM, we mark it dirty. Wouldn't that be a good
opportunity to freeze all the other tuples on the page that we can?
Or, perhaps when the bgwriter is flushing dirty buffers, it can look for
opportunities to set hint bits or freeze tuples.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-13 21:33:40 | Getting rid of the flat authentication file |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-08-13 21:15:19 | Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Carey | 2009-08-13 21:42:41 | Re: Memory usage of writer process |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-08-13 21:15:19 | Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? |