| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hint Bits and Write I/O |
| Date: | 2008-05-29 22:21:19 |
| Message-ID: | 483EE689.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
>>> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 6:26 PM, in message
<483DEA2D(dot)3010704(at)phlo(dot)org>,
"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
> I think we should put some randomness into the decision,
> to spread the IO caused by hit-bit updates after a batch load.
Currently we have a policy of doing a VACUUM FREEZE ANALYZE on a table
after a bulk load, or on the entire database after loading a pg_dump
of a database. We do this before putting the table or database into
production. This avoids surprising clusters of writes at
unpredictable times. Please don't defeat that. (I'm not sure whether
your current suggestion would.)
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-29 22:29:01 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-29 22:18:07 | Re: intercepting WAL writes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-29 22:48:35 | Re: minor change to replace function comment |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2008-05-29 17:36:06 | Re: Extending grant insert on tables to sequences |