| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Visibility map, partial vacuums |
| Date: | 2008-11-26 15:44:24 |
| Message-ID: | 492D6ED8.5070105@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Well, considering how seldom new pages will be added to the visibility
>>> map, it seems to me we could afford to send out a relcache inval event
>>> when that happens. Then rd_vm_nblocks_cache could be treated as
>>> trustworthy.
>
>> A relcache invalidation sounds awfully heavy-weight.
>
> It really isn't.
Okay, then. I'll use relcache invalidation for both the FSM and
visibility map.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-11-26 15:48:35 | Re: what is necessary for filling SysCache? |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2008-11-26 15:35:22 | Re: what is necessary for filling SysCache? |