Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmobrEja6V3Jgw+KJR1um7VNT2Mup=vrrJwnvWiFmM2vjNw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem  (andres@anarazel.de (Andres Freund))
Ответы Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem  (Ivan Kartyshov <i.kartyshov@postgrespro.ru>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-09-02 08:31:42 +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I wonder whether we ought to just switch from the consistent method to
>> the semiconsistent method and call it good.
>
> +1. I think, before long, we're going to have to switch away from having
> locks & partitions in the first place. So I don't see a problem relaxing
> this. It's not like that consistency really buys you anything...  I'd
> even consider not using any locks.

I think we certainly want to lock the buffer header, because otherwise
we might get a torn read of the buffer tag, which doesn't seem good.
But it's not obvious to me that there's any point in taking the lock
on the buffer mapping partition; I'm thinking that doesn't really do
anything unless we lock them all, and we all seem to agree that's
going too far.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Heikki Linnakangas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Optimizing numeric SUM() aggregate
Следующее
От: Christoph Berg
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCH] COPY vs \copy HINT