From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jesper Krogh <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: HEAD seems to generate larger WAL regarding GIN index |
Date: | 2014-04-14 14:40:49 |
Message-ID: | 13399.1397486449@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Should we try to install some hack around fastupdate for 9.4? I fear
>> the divergence between reasonable values of work_mem and reasonable
>> sizes for that list is only going to continue to get bigger. I'm sure
>> there's somebody out there who has work_mem = 16GB, and stuff like
>> 263865a48973767ce8ed7b7788059a38a24a9f37 is only going to increase the
>> appeal of large values.
> Controlling the threshold of the size of pending list only by GUC doesn't
> seem reasonable. Users may want to increase the threshold only for the
> GIN index which can be updated heavily, and decrease it otherwise. So
> I think that it's better to add new storage parameter for GIN index to control
> the threshold, or both storage parameter and GUC.
Yeah, -1 for a GUC. A GIN-index-specific storage parameter seems more
appropriate. Or we could just hard-wire some maximum limit. Is it
really likely that users would trouble to set such a parameter if it
existed?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-04-14 14:45:45 | Re: Signaling of waiting for a cleanup lock? |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-04-14 14:40:15 | Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP) |