| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist |
| Date: | 2020-02-05 15:12:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobjxcwQ0RvDioJOZFa7gQ=gTi=gMDT1KZwDpEHk5tWsTQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 4:57 AM k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> Kindly check the attached V6 patch.
> Any thoughts on this?
Unfortunately, I don't have time for detailed review of this. I am
suspicious that there are substantial performance regressions that you
just haven't found yet. I would not take the position that this is a
completely hopeless approach, or anything like that, but neither would
I conclude that the tests shown so far are anywhere near enough to be
confident that there are no problems.
Also, systems with very large shared_buffers settings are becoming
more common, and probably will continue to become more common, so I
don't think we can dismiss that as an edge case any more. People don't
want to run with an 8GB cache on a 1TB server.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-02-05 15:13:44 | Re: Is custom MemoryContext prohibited? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-02-05 15:09:01 | Re: Is custom MemoryContext prohibited? |