From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Page-at-a-time Locking Considerations |
Date: | 2008-02-04 21:10:30 |
Message-ID: | 20080204211030.GL16380@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> > Gregory Stark wrote:
> >> I wonder how hard it would be to shove the clog into regular shared memory
> >> pages and let the clock sweep take care of adjusting the percentage of shared
> >> mem allocated to the clog versus data pages.
> My recollection is that we didn't do that because the standard buffer
> manager has some assumptions that are violated by clog/etc pages ---
> notably the lack of LSNs on the pages. Not sure how hard that is to
> fix. I also note that we'd not really be removing any contention,
> rather just pushing it into the bufmgr. Maybe the bufmgr is now
> scalable enough that it could take the extra load better than SLRU can,
> but this is hardly a given.
Well, in the case of pg_subtrans, I don't think the problem is
contention -- rather, the fact that the number of buffers is fixed and
small.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | 0123 zyxw | 2008-02-04 21:26:06 | Re: FW: bitemporal functionality for PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-02-04 21:10:13 | Re: Page-at-a-time Locking Considerations |