Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem

From: Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ivan Kartyshov <i(dot)kartyshov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem
Date: 2016-09-15 08:41:19
Message-ID: 5303e382-815d-6843-12eb-363877451fc5@catalyst.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 02/09/16 15:19, Andres Freund wrote:

> On 2016-09-02 08:31:42 +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I wonder whether we ought to just switch from the consistent method to
>> the semiconsistent method and call it good.
> +1. I think, before long, we're going to have to switch away from having
> locks & partitions in the first place. So I don't see a problem relaxing
> this. It's not like that consistency really buys you anything... I'd
> even consider not using any locks.
>

+1 as well. When I wrote the original module I copied the design of the
pg_locks view - as it was safe and consistent. Now it is clear that the
ability to look at (semi-consistent) contents of the buffer cache is
more important than having a theoretically correct point in time
snapshot. Go for it :-)

regards

Mark

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2016-09-15 08:53:31 Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Previous Message Oskari Saarenmaa 2016-09-15 06:55:47 Re: Use pread and pwrite instead of lseek + write and read