| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com, david(at)fetter(dot)org, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Subject: | Re: Page Checksums + Double Writes |
| Date: | 2012-01-05 13:25:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0xmZB+ZxXH3rLgQO-64AqEqen44t21G+p9NvKaxCkK_hQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
> On Jan4, 2012, at 21:27 , Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think the first thing we need to look at is increasing the number of
>> CLOG buffers.
>
> What became of the idea to treat the stable (i.e. earlier than the oldest
> active xid) and the unstable (i.e. the rest) parts of the CLOG differently.
I'm curious -- anyone happen to have an idea how big the unstable CLOG
xid space is in the "typical" case? What's would be the main driver
of making it bigger? What are the main tradeoffs in terms of trying
to keep the unstable area compact?
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-01-05 13:54:46 | optimizing repeated MVCC snapshots |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2012-01-05 13:23:57 | Re: FATAL: bogus data in lock file "postmaster.pid": "" |