| From: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: reducing statistics write overhead |
| Date: | 2009-01-22 22:58:53 |
| Message-ID: | 4978FA2D.3000706@timbira.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera escreveu:
> This could be solved if the workers kept the whole history of tables
> that they have vacuumed. Currently we keep only a single table (the one
> being vacuumed right now). I proposed writing these history files back
> when workers were first implemented, but the idea was shot down before
> flying very far because it was way too complex (the rest of the patch
> was more than complex enough.) Maybe we can implement this now.
>
[I don't remember your proposal...] Isn't it just add a circular linked list
at AutoVacuumShmemStruct? Of course some lock mechanism needs to exist to
guarantee that we don't write at the same time. The size of this linked list
would be scale by a startup-time-guc or a reasonable fixed value.
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
http://www.timbira.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-22 23:13:18 | Re: Frames vs partitions: is SQL2008 completely insane? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-01-22 22:58:26 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |