| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages? |
| Date: | 2014-04-17 19:47:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAOuzzgqEFTgDSiwbKYmRSSYC7d=T=69jU2kGeW_6nNN48DUt6g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday, April 17, 2014, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> no -- I got you. My point was, that's a pure guess unless you base it
> on evidence recorded on the page itself. Without that evidence,
> (which requires writing) the operating is in a a better place to make
> that guess so it's probably better to defer that decision.
>
Well, we'd only need that info to be stored in the buffer cache somehow-
wouldn't have to go to disk or cause more I/O, of course. My thinking was
that we could track it with the existing counter too, avoiding even that
small amount of locking to write to the buffer page.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-17 20:14:55 | Re: New windows compiler warning from 585bca39 |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2014-04-17 19:44:21 | Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages? |