| From: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jack Ng <Jack(dot)Ng(at)huawei(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ni Ku <jakkuniku(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart |
| Date: | 2025-07-14 16:32:35 |
| Message-ID: | 6r37jr5f5cfwve3tycgvmasxdfih3xv7jfua24ewt7ebnh4sn2@vzxf5ngdkgmb |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 03:18:10PM +0000, Jack Ng wrote:
> Just brain-storming here... would moving NBuffers to shared memory solve this specific issue? Though I'm pretty sure that would open up a new set of synchronization issues elsewhere, so I'm not sure if there's a net gain.
It's in fact already happening, there is a shared structure that
described the resize status. But if I get everything right, it doesn't
solve all the problems.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-07-14 17:28:03 | Re: Horribly slow pg_upgrade performance with many Large Objects |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-07-14 16:24:14 | Re: Horribly slow pg_upgrade performance with many Large Objects |