From: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Moving 'hot' pages from buffer pool to heap |
Date: | 2013-08-06 04:15:02 |
Message-ID: | 7F0B3991-6051-416C-A23D-D2670846AEC9@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sent from my iPad
On 06-Aug-2013, at 1:57, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Just experimenting though.I was thinking of scenarios where a page is pinned for long period of time.My concern was that it would lead to blocking of a buffer pool slot for that entire duration. The idea is to allocate a separate data structure for such hot pages in memory,and maintain them there.
>
> You can't do that; such a copy could easily become stale, leading to wrong
> query answers. Perhaps more to the point, long-term pins (as opposed to
> locks) aren't that problematic. What problem do you think you're solving?
>
>
Yeah,long term pins are something I was thinking of solving with this.Now that you mention it, I think my main concern wasn't long term pins,rather,anything that doesn't allow for page eviction for a long time.
Regards,
Atri
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vlad Arkhipov | 2013-08-06 05:56:48 | System catalog vacuum issues |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2013-08-06 04:09:01 | Re: Should we remove "not fast" promotion at all? |