Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.
Date: 2015-04-21 20:32:45
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZm7Gi_QX27+58DNDtYtpAX6Z=+NotHiT5STBe+yNitoA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2015-04-21 16:21:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> All that having been said, I don't think adding a new fork is a good
>> approach. We already have problems pretty commonly where our
>> customers complain about running out of inodes. Adding another fork
>> for every table would exacerbate that problem considerably.
>
> Really? These days? There's good arguments against another fork
> (increased number of fsyncs, more stat calls, increased number of file
> handles, more WAL logging, ...), but the number of inodes themselves
> seems like something halfway recent filesystems should handle.

Not making it up...

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-04-21 20:36:09 Re: Replication identifiers, take 4
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-04-21 20:27:58 Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.