Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem

From: andres(at)anarazel(dot)de (Andres Freund)
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ivan Kartyshov <i(dot)kartyshov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem
Date: 2016-09-02 03:19:27
Message-ID: 20160902031927.mchzocis5lnymykz@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016-09-02 08:31:42 +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> I wonder whether we ought to just switch from the consistent method to
> the semiconsistent method and call it good.

+1. I think, before long, we're going to have to switch away from having
locks & partitions in the first place. So I don't see a problem relaxing
this. It's not like that consistency really buys you anything... I'd
even consider not using any locks.

Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-09-02 03:30:39 Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-09-02 03:01:42 Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem