Re: tablespace patch

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: tablespace patch
Date: 2003-05-06 04:24:30
Message-ID: 04bb01c31387$637105d0$6500a8c0@fhp.internal
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Well, they shouldn't be using Relations, for sure. Something based
> on knowing only RelFileNode would be appropriate. Vadim wrote a few
> messages about this back when he was still active --- check the
> archives.
>
> In my mind a touchstone for a proper redesign of this layer is that
> the checkpoint process should not be handicapped by not being a full
> backend. Right now, all checkpoint buffer writes happen via
> smgrblindwrt, which is a nontrivial performance loss. Ideally the
> notion of "blind write" should go away, because you shouldn't need
> anything more than the RelFileNode and block number, which are both
> available from the shared buffer descriptor.

Hmmm...might be a bit out of my league... I'll look into it all, but
something tells me it'll take me quite a while :)

Chris

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-05-06 04:25:33 Re: Hypothetical suggestions for planner, indexing improvement
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-05-06 04:13:21 Re: tablespace patch