| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ivan Kartyshov <i(dot)kartyshov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem |
| Date: | 2016-09-02 03:30:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQkmhuB2fiEy2mmB0yVGOyqP8AuOMkGrJgvca8dVkG8Ew@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2016-09-02 08:31:42 +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I wonder whether we ought to just switch from the consistent method to
>> the semiconsistent method and call it good.
>
> +1. I think, before long, we're going to have to switch away from having
> locks & partitions in the first place. So I don't see a problem relaxing
> this. It's not like that consistency really buys you anything... I'd
> even consider not using any locks.
Right. ISTM that the consistency guarantee was added on the off chance
that it mattered, without actually being justified. I would like to be
able to run pg_buffercache in production from time to time.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-09-02 03:55:35 | Re: Hash Indexes |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-09-02 03:19:27 | Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem |