Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame
Date: 2011-08-14 11:07:06
Message-ID: CA+U5nM+CsgYaH6EfJTWy+YrEJG4Ygzp9Q5hCG3vvCBZeuGEGhA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> I agree that
> something's missing.

I'm quoting you completely out of context here, but yes, something is missing.

We can't credibly do one test on usage count in shared buffers and
then start talking about how buffer management is all wrong.

My own patch requires more test evidence before we can commit it,
which is why I hadn't published it before now. I'll endeavour to do
that now its on the table.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-08-14 12:44:05 Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2011-08-14 10:57:22 Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame