Re: CLOG contention, part 2

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Jeff Janes  wrote:
> Also, I think the general approach is wrong.  The only reason to have
> these pages in shared memory is that we can control access to them to
> prevent write/write and read/write corruption.  Since these pages are
> never written, they don't need to be in shared memory.   Just read
> each page into backend-local memory as it is needed, either
> palloc/pfree each time or using a single reserved block for the
> lifetime of the session.  Let the kernel worry about caching them so
> that the above mentioned reads are cheap.

right -- exactly.  but why stop at one page?

merlin