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
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 |