From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |
Date: | 2015-04-06 18:39:58 |
Message-ID: | 5522D2FE.3090802@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/06/2015 11:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> I agree with Jim that if we have a trustworthy Frozen Map, having a
>> ReadOnly flag is of marginal value, unless such a ReadOnly flag allowed
>> us to skip updating the individual row XIDs entirely. I can think of
>> some ways to do that, but they have severe tradeoffs.
>
> If you're thinking that the READ ONLY flag is only useful for freezing,
> then yeah maybe it's of marginal value. But in the foreign key
> constraint area, consider that you could have tables with
> frequently-referenced PKs marked as READ ONLY -- then you don't need to
> acquire row locks when inserting/updating rows in the referencing
> tables. That might give you a good performance benefit that's not in
> any way related to freezing, as well as reducing your multixact
> consumption rate.
Hmmmm. Yeah, that would make it worthwhile, although it would be a
fairly obscure bit of performance optimization for anyone not on this
list ;-)
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-04-06 18:52:18 | Re: BUG #12989: pg_size_pretty with negative values |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-04-06 18:35:37 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |