On 05/26/2014 04:16 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> Overriding the setting in postgresql.conf rather than that in database might
> confuse users because it's opposite order of the priority of the GUC setting.
>
> Or, what about storig the setting into flat file like replication slot?
seems like a good time to introduce a notion of non-replicated tables :)
should be a good fit with logical replication.
Cheers
Hannu
>
> Regards,
>
--
Hannu Krosing
PostgreSQL Consultant
Performance, Scalability and High Availability
2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ