From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm. |
Date: | 2016-10-31 13:09:43 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa43TzZJL7FOSj8ohh_a1ZN7UYs6q7hu8qHhM4F=ZV-bw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>>
>> There is not much common functionality between the two.
>
> I don't really agree. For me manual and automated prewarming are pretty
> closely related. Sure they have their independent usages, and not too
> much code might be shared. But grouping them in the same extension seems
> to make sense, it's confusing to have closely related but independent
> extensions.
I agree that putting them together would be fine.
>> One point that seems to be worth discussing is when should the buffer
>> information be dumped to a file? Shall we dump at each checkpoint or
>> at regular intervals via auto prewarm worker or at some other time?
>
> Should probably be at some regular interval - not sure if checkpoints
> are the best time (or if it's even realistic to tie a bgworker to
> checkpoints), since checkpoints have a significant impact on the state
> of shared_buffers.
Checkpoints don't cause any buffer replacement, which I think is what
would be relevant here.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-10-31 13:18:31 | Re: Query regarding selectDumpableExtension() |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-10-31 13:07:54 | Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables |