From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CLOG contention |
Date: | 2012-01-05 19:57:01 |
Message-ID: | 14387.1325793421@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I would like to do that, but I think we need to at least figure out a
> way to provide an escape hatch for people without much shared memory.
> We could do that, perhaps, by using a formula like this:
> 1 CLOG buffer per 128MB of shared_buffers, with a minimum of 8 and a
> maximum of 32
I would be in favor of that, or perhaps some other formula (eg, maybe
the minimum should be less than 8 for when you've got very little shmem).
I think that the reason it's historically been a constant is that the
original coding took advantage of having a compile-time-constant number
of buffers --- but since we went over to the common SLRU infrastructure
for several different logs, there's no longer any benefit whatever to
using a simple constant.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-05 20:00:53 | Re: CLOG contention |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-01-05 19:44:50 | Re: CLOG contention |