Re: Recovery performance of standby for multiple concurrent truncates on large tables

From: 'Andres Freund' <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: "Jamison, Kirk" <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Recovery performance of standby for multiple concurrent truncates on large tables
Date: 2018-07-30 20:17:04
Message-ID: 20180730201704.6fsbwhw52eu3c24d@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2018-07-30 05:22:48 +0000, Jamison, Kirk wrote:
> BTW, are there any updates whether the community will push through
> anytime soon regarding the buffer mapping implementation you
> mentioned?

I'm continuing to work on it, but unfortunately there's a couple
projects that have higher priority atm :(. I'm doubtful I can have a
patchset in a committable shape for v12, but I'm pretty sure I'll have
it in a shape good enough to make progress towards v13. Sorry :(

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-07-30 20:25:50 Re: documentation about explicit locking
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-07-30 20:15:36 Re: Recovery performance of standby for multiple concurrent truncates on large tables