From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
Date: | 2009-08-13 23:21:09 |
Message-ID: | 1250205669.24981.129.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 18:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Jeff Davis<pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> > Or, perhaps when the bgwriter is flushing dirty buffers, it can look for
> > opportunities to set hint bits or freeze tuples.
>
> One of the tricky things here is that the time you are mostly likely
> to want to do this is when you are loading a lot of data. But in that
> case shared buffers are likely to be written back to disk before
> transaction commit, so it'll be too early to do anything.
I think it would be useful in other cases, like avoiding repeated
freezing of different tuples on the same page.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2009-08-13 23:21:47 | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-08-13 23:20:23 | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2009-08-13 23:21:47 | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-08-13 23:20:23 | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |