| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, "J(dot) R(dot) Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com>, Richard Tucker <richt(at)multera(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |
| Date: | 2002-08-05 13:41:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20362.1028554864@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net> writes:
> On Sat, 2002-08-03 at 21:01, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * Local bufmgr semantics are twiddled to reflect this reality --- in
>> particular, data in local buffers can be held across transactions, there
>> is no end-of-transaction write (much less fsync). A TEMP table that
>> isn't too large might never touch disk at all.
> Curious. Is there currently such a criteria? What exactly constitutes
> "too large"?
"too large" means "doesn't fit in the local buffer set". At the moment
the maximum number of local buffers seems to be frozen at 64. I was
thinking of exposing that as a configuration parameter while we're at
it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-05 13:44:50 | Re: Error: missing chunk number ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-05 13:37:10 | Re: anonymous composite types for Table Functions (aka SRFs) |