On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 17:40 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> >
> > > I'm happy with the idea of a readahead process. I thought we were
> > > implementing a BackgroundReader process for other uses. Is that dead
> > > now?
> >
> > You and Bruce seem to keep resurrecting that idea. I've never liked it -- I
> > always hated that in Oracle and thought it was a terrible kludge.
>
> I didn't think I was promoting the separate reader process after you had
> the posix_fadvise() idea.
I think Greg is misinterpreting our occasional lack of exactness as
disagreement. The end solution is the goal, not any of the discussed
mechanisms. It's always good to have a name for it that sums up the
goals rather than the methods e.g. frequent update optimisation rather
than update-in-place.
It would be good if the solutions for normal running and recovery were
similar. Greg, please could you look into that?
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support