| From: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: O_DIRECT for relations and SLRUs (Prototype) |
| Date: | 2019-01-13 11:39:16 |
| Message-ID: | 27FDEBE7-D07C-43D9-8A51-C883BD731438@yandex-team.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 13 янв. 2019 г., в 14:02, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> написал(а):
>
>> 3. We probably want SLRUs to use the main buffer pool, instead of
>> their own mini-pools, so they can benefit from the above.
>
> Wasn't there a thread about that on -hackers actually? I cannot see
> any reference to it.
I think it's here https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAEepm%3D0o-%3Dd8QPO%3DYGFiBSqq2p6KOvPVKG3bggZi5Pv4nQw8nw%40mail.gmail.com#bacee3e6612c53c31658b18650e7ffd9
> As long as the option can be controlled and
> defaults to false, it seems to be that we could do something. Even if
> the performance is bad, this gives the user control of how he/she
> wants things to be done.
I like the idea of having this switch, I believe it will make development in this direction easier.
But I think there will be complain from users like "this feature is done wrong" due to really bad performance.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-01-13 11:53:15 | Re: O_DIRECT for relations and SLRUs (Prototype) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-01-13 09:54:18 | Re: port of INSTALL file generation to XSLT |