| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Error with index on unlogged table |
| Date: | 2015-12-09 11:04:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20151209110423.GI28762@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-12-09 19:36:11 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > On 2015-12-09 16:30:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> > I'm kinda wondering if it wouldn't have been better to go through shared
> >> > buffers in ResetUnloggedRelationsInDbspaceDir() instead of using
> >> > copy_file().
> >>
> >> For deployment with large shared_buffers settings, wouldn't that be
> >> actually more costly than the current way of doing? We would need to
> >> go through all the buffers at least once and look for the INIT_FORKNUM
> >> present to flush them.
> >
> > We could just check the file sizes on disk, and the check for the
> > contents of all the pages for each file.
>
> By doing it at replay, the flushes are spread across time. And by
> doing it at the end of recovery, all the flushes would be grouped. Do
> you think that's fine?
The point is that we'd no flushes, because the data would come directly
from shared buffers...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2015-12-09 11:17:46 | Re: Making tab-complete.c easier to maintain |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-12-09 10:36:11 | Re: Error with index on unlogged table |