| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Streaming read-ready sequential scan code |
| Date: | 2024-04-04 09:31:57 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGKfz1gvCyyvFqdFU0Gxpu1KeVhJ-mF0KDQdaToT7B+SYw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 11:13 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> The / 2 is to avoid causing unnecessarily frequent WAL flushes, right? If so,
> should we apply that only if the ring the strategy doesn't use the
> StrategyRejectBuffer() logic?
Hmm, I don't really know, but that sounds plausible. What do you
think about the attached?
> I think for VACUUM we should probably go a bit further. There's no comparable
> L1/L2 issue, because the per-buffer processing + WAL insertion is a lot more
> expensive, compared to a seqscan. I'd go or at lest 4x-8x.
Alright what about this?
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Allow-BufferAccessStrategy-to-limit-pin-count.txt | text/plain | 3.8 KB |
| 0002-Increase-default-vacuum_buffer_usage_limit-to-2MB.txt | text/plain | 3.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-04-04 09:33:17 | Re: Silence Meson warning on HEAD |
| Previous Message | shveta malik | 2024-04-04 09:29:09 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |