| From: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart |
| Date: | 2025-09-28 09:24:26 |
| Message-ID: | t6jqediojupje7pecigy2bjckuccn5s7mshdxq5ttzg4wechpx@tkneuqh4ojhj |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 10:25:29AM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> Given these things, I think we should set up the buffer lookup table
> to hold maximum entries required to expand the buffer pool to its
> maximum, right at the beginning.
Thanks for investigating. I think another option would be to rebuild the
buffer lookup table (create a new table based on the new size and copy
the data over from the original one) as part of the resize procedure,
alongsize with buffers eviction and initialization. From what I recall
the size of buffer lookup table is about two orders of magnitude lower
than shared buffers, so the overhead should not be that large even for
significant amount of buffers.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mihail Nikalayeu | 2025-09-28 09:26:00 | Re: Revisiting {CREATE INDEX, REINDEX} CONCURRENTLY improvements |
| Previous Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2025-09-28 09:23:51 | Re: allow benign typedef redefinitions (C11) |