Re: [HACKERS] v6.4 - What is planned...?

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: vadim(at)krs(dot)ru (Vadim Mikheev)
Cc: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org (PostgreSQL-development)
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] v6.4 - What is planned...?
Date: 1998-06-08 15:29:12
Message-ID: 199806081529.LAA09224@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>
> Well, my plans for 6.4:
>
> 1. Btree: use TID as (last) part of index key; prepare btree
> for low-level locking (it's now possible to lose root page).
> 2. Vacuum: speed up index cleaning; release pg_class lock after
> updation statistic for a table.
> 3. Buffer manager: error handling broken; should flush only
> buffers changed by backend itself.
> 4. Implement shared catalog cache; get rid of invalidation code.
> 5. Subselects: in target list; in FROM.
> 6. Transaction manager: get rid of pg_variable; do not prefetch
> XIDs; nested transactions; savepoints.

That's quite a list.

Vadim, I hate to ask, but how about the buffering of pg_log writes and
the ability to do sync() every 30 seconds then flush pg_log, so we can
have crash reliability without doing fsync() on every transaction.

We discussed this months ago, and I am not sure if you were thinking of
doing this for 6.4. I can send the old posts if that would help. It
would certainly increase our speed vs. fsync().

--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oleg Broytmann 1998-06-08 15:36:42 Re: [HACKERS] backend now show status in 'ps'
Previous Message Doug Lo 1998-06-08 15:27:01 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Should I run regression tests?