| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: It's past time to redo the smgr API |
| Date: | 2004-02-05 22:43:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20040205184150.J4449@ganymede.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > 'k, only comment is on this one ... would it not be a bit more efficient
> > to add a flag to the "SMgrRelation *" structure that acts as a timer?
>
> Hm, we could try that, although I'm not sure it would help much. You'd
> have to set the timeout to be longer than a checkpoint interval to make
> any difference.
Why? Setting it to the checkpoint interval itself should be sufficient,
no? All you want to do is avoid closing any files that were used during
that last checkpoint interval, since there is a good chance you'd have to
once more reopen them in the checkpoint interval ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-05 23:14:38 | Re: It's past time to redo the smgr API |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-02-05 22:02:46 | Re: It's past time to redo the smgr API |