| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Relation extension scalability |
| Date: | 2016-02-02 16:00:33 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaLMigywn=XdvbJCN16GcegvTgDJASgKTRWn9tDnxvXNQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I'm doubtful that anything that does the victim buffer search while
> holding the extension lock will actually scale in a wide range of
> scenarios. The copy scenario here probably isn't too bad because the
> copy ring buffes are in use, and because there's no reads increasing the
> usagecount of recent buffers; thus a victim buffers are easily found.
I agree that's an avenue we should try to explore. I haven't had any
time to think much about how it should be done, but it seems like it
ought to be possible somehow.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Banck | 2016-02-02 16:13:55 | Re: PostgreSQL Auditing |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-02-02 16:00:11 | Re: Relation extension scalability |