| From: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jack Ng <Jack(dot)Ng(at)huawei(dot)com>, Ni Ku <jakkuniku(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart |
| Date: | 2025-07-14 14:01:50 |
| Message-ID: | pkjfmei3j6yqmdi76cwzsmn4z34zg5yanb7rfv2rq4aik6ija3@xq6nrkvpya76 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 09:42:46AM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> What on earth would be the point of putting a buffer on the freelist but not
> make it reachable by the clock sweep? To me that's just nonsensical.
To clarify, we're not talking about this scenario as "that's how it
would work after the resize". The point is that to expand shared buffers
they need to be initialized, included into the whole buffer machinery
(freelist, clock sweep, etc.) and NBuffers has to be updated. Those
steps are separated in time, and I'm currently trying to understand what
are the consequences of performing them in different order and whether
there are possible concurrency issues under various scenarios. Does this
make more sense, or still not?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2025-07-14 14:02:35 | Re: speedup COPY TO for partitioned table. |
| Previous Message | Maxim Orlov | 2025-07-14 13:54:33 | Re: POC: make mxidoff 64 bits |