On 05/20/2014 01:46 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Haribabu Kommi
> <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> I Implemented a proof of concept patch to see whether the buffer pool
>> split can improve the performance or not.
>>
>> Summary of the changes:
>> 1. The priority buffers are allocated as continuous to the shared buffers.
>> 2. Added new reloption parameter called "buffer_pool" to specify the
>> buffer_pool user wants the table to use.
> I'm not sure if storing the information of "priority table" into
> database is good
> because this means that it's replicated to the standby and the same table
> will be treated with high priority even in the standby server. I can imagine
> some users want to set different tables as high priority ones in master and
> standby.
There might be a possibility to override this in postgresql.conf for
optimising what you described but for most uses it is best to be in
the database, at least to get started.
Cheers
--
Hannu Krosing
PostgreSQL Consultant
Performance, Scalability and High Availability
2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ