From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
Cc: | Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm. |
Date: | 2017-01-25 21:20:42 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ-s-588eytjmuBzU9_56mvdgHeqyjg6j23drVdzWf1CA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> I think the two need to be integrated much better than they are right now.
> They should certainly be in the same .so, and as others have mentioned the
> docs need to be fixed. For consistency, I think the name should just be
> pg_prewarm, as well as the prefix for the GUC.
Yikes. +1, definitely.
> It would also be handy of those functions
> accepted a different filename. That way you could reset shared_buffers to a
> known condition before running a test.
That would have some pretty unpleasant security implications unless it
is awfully carefully thought out. I doubt this has enough utility to
make it worth thinking that hard about.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-01-25 21:22:41 | Re: Checksums by default? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-01-25 21:18:17 | Re: pg_ls_dir & friends still have a hard-coded superuser check |