| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Closing some 8.4 open items |
| Date: | 2009-04-05 18:19:25 |
| Message-ID: | 4136ffa0904051119j5c5464f7t1e54719c2a6b4de8@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm excited about some of them, but not to the point of not wanting to
> ship beta. So +1 for removing them as per your suggestions.
I'm somewhat excited about posix_fadvise but my general feeling was
that it was best to do nothing anyways. I don't know how to test these
questions though because they depend a lot on workload and pgbench or
synthetic queries which stress prefetching aren't especially good at
measuring how fast pages get evicted.
As far as reimplementing regular index scans -- I don't currently see
any way to do it in a way that would satisfy your demands that
wouldn't be insanely complex. Hopefully I'm missing something obvious
and if someone sees what I would be happy to go ahead and implement
something. But everything I've tried has turned into a monster.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-05 18:24:23 | Re: Closing some 8.4 open items |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-05 18:07:32 | Re: Closing some 8.4 open items |