| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries |
| Date: | 2017-12-18 00:23:45 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZE7jq2BMOmOqiwGYaDb1ZEvXyFpbKP3rJwzax6VQbk7g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> I'm not sure we should regard very quick bloating as a problem in need
>> of solving. Doesn't that just mean we need the cache to be bigger, at
>> least temporarily?
>
> Leaving that aside, is that actually not at least to a good degree,
> solved by that problem? By bumping the generation on hash resize, we
> have recency information we can take into account.
I agree that we can do it. I'm just not totally sure it's a good
idea. I'm also not totally sure it's a bad idea, either. That's why
I asked the question.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-18 00:26:54 | Re: pg_(total_)relation_size and partitioned tables |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-12-18 00:20:39 | Re: pgsql: Provide overflow safe integer math inline functions. |