| From: | Bruce Guenter <bruceg(at)em(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Using Threads? |
| Date: | 2000-12-05 20:04:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20001205140419.A9995@em.ca |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 02:52:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> There aren't going to be all that many data pages needing the COW
> treatment, because the postmaster uses very little data space of its
> own. I think this would become an issue if we tried to have the
> postmaster pre-cache catalog information for backends, however (see
> my post elsewhere in this thread).
Would that pre-cached data not be placed in a SHM segment? Such
segments don't do COW, so this would be a non-issue.
--
Bruce Guenter <bruceg(at)em(dot)ca> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martin A. Marques | 2000-12-05 20:21:38 | Re: beta testing version |
| Previous Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2000-12-05 20:04:09 | Re: Need help with phys backed shm segments (Postgresql+FreeBSD). |