| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Anything to be gained from a 'Postgres Filesystem'? |
| Date: | 2004-11-04 20:45:51 |
| Message-ID: | 29577.1099601151@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 19:34, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But only for Postgres' own shared buffers. The kernel cache still gets
>> trashed, because we have no way to suggest to the kernel that it not
>> hang onto the data read in.
> I guess a difference in viewpoints. I'm inclined to give most of the RAM
> to PostgreSQL, since as you point out, the kernel is out of our control.
> That way, we can do what we like with it - keep it or not, as we choose.
That's always been a Bad Idea for three or four different reasons, of
which ARC will eliminate no more than one.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steinar H. Gunderson | 2004-11-04 20:46:03 | Re: Restricting Postgres |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2004-11-04 20:40:45 | Re: Anything to be gained from a 'Postgres Filesystem'? |