| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart |
| Date: | 2025-04-18 11:02:13 |
| Message-ID: | 94B56B9C-025A-463F-BC57-DF5B15B8E808@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On April 18, 2025 11:17:21 AM GMT+02:00, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Doesn't that achieve the goal with fewer steps, using only
>portable* POSIX stuff, and keeping all pointers stable? I understand
>that pointer stability may not be required (I can see roughly how that
>argument is constructed), but isn't it still better to avoid having to
>prove that and deal with various other problems completely?
I think we should flat out reject any approach that does not maintain pointer stability. It would restrict future optimizations a lot if we can't rely on that (e.g. not materializing tuples when transporting them from worker to leader; pointering datastructures in shared buffers).
Greetings,
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-04-18 11:05:15 | Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart |
| Previous Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2025-04-18 09:49:01 | RE: Parallel heap vacuum |