Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame
Date: 2012-01-02 17:41:47
Message-ID: 24251.1325526107@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Does anyone have a better idea for reducing BufFreelistLock
> contention? Something simple that will work for 9.2?

Get rid of the freelist? Once shared buffers are full, it's just about
useless anyway. But you'd need to think about the test cases that you
pay attention to, as there might be scenarios where it remains useful.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2012-01-02 17:50:13 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2012-01-02 17:30:01 Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame