Re: when the startup process doesn't

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: when the startup process doesn't
Date: 2021-04-21 20:00:32
Message-ID: 20210421200032.ojzbrbdhrqw7nroa@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2021-04-21 15:51:38 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> It does seem like we have some trade-offs here to weigh, but
> pg_control is indeed quite small..

What do you mean by that? That the overhead of writing it out more
frequently wouldn't be too bad? Or that we shouldn't "unnecessarily" add
more fields to it?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2021-04-21 20:07:43 Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)
Previous Message Andres Freund 2021-04-21 19:59:04 Re: posgres 12 bug (partitioned table)