| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries |
| Date: | 2016-12-20 16:58:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaMPbN5vvH33zLK7MR+PiCYWPvTHmSSrDab4vurLOXS-Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 20 December 2016 at 21:59, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> We could implement this by having
>>> some process, like the background writer,
>>> SendProcSignal(PROCSIG_HOUSEKEEPING) to every process in the system
>>> every 10 minutes or so.
>
>> ... on a rolling basis.
>
> I don't understand why we'd make that a system-wide behavior at all,
> rather than expecting each process to manage its own cache.
Individual backends don't have a really great way to do time-based
stuff, do they? I mean, yes, there is enable_timeout() and friends,
but I think that requires quite a bit of bookkeeping.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2016-12-20 17:17:49 | Re: pgstattuple documentation clarification |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-12-20 16:53:55 | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |