From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Experimental patch for inter-page delay in VACUUM |
Date: | 2003-11-02 22:51:24 |
Message-ID: | 1067813484.3357.20.camel@fuji.krosing.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane kirjutas P, 02.11.2003 kell 20:00:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > I am currently looking at implementing ARC as a replacement strategy. I
> > don't have anything that works yet, so I can't really tell what the
> > result would be and it might turn out that we want both features.
>
> It's likely that we would. As someone (you?) already pointed out,
> VACUUM has bad side-effects both in terms of cache flushing and in
> terms of sheer I/O load. Those effects require different fixes AFAICS.
>
> One thing that bothers me here is that I don't see how adjusting our
> own buffer replacement strategy is going to do much of anything when
> we cannot control the kernel's buffer replacement strategy.
At least for OpenSource/Free OS'es it would probably be possible to
persuade kernel developers to give the needed control to userspace apps.
So the "take over all RAM" is not the only option ;)
> To get any
> real traction we'd have to go back to the "take over most of RAM for
> shared buffers" approach, which we already know to have a bunch of
> severe disadvantages.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-02 23:06:45 | Re: Avoiding SIGPIPE (was Re: OSDL DBT-2 w/ PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Fabrizio Mazzoni | 2003-11-02 22:42:28 | pgsql crosstab function |