Re: autoprewarm_dump_now

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Daria Shanina <vilensipkdm(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: autoprewarm_dump_now
Date: 2025-05-29 13:58:31
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaJx5mbuXbk0RXiQ=p+xA4kaw+UP7tyUvyQTmgjw6rB7A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 9:21 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Is that solving a real-world problem? If it is, shouldn't we be
> looking for a different approach that doesn't require such a huge
> amount of memory?

Upthread, Heikki said that this function currently fails with
shared_buffers>409GB. While I'm not opposed to a more efficient
solution, it seems reasonable to me to suppose that if you've got
shared_buffers>409GB, you're able to afford having this function use
>1GB.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2025-05-29 14:28:35 Re: Add comment explaining why queryid is int64 in pg_stat_statements
Previous Message Robert Haas 2025-05-29 13:43:41 Re: pg18: Virtual generated columns are not (yet) safe when superuser selects from them