| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposing pg_hibernate |
| Date: | 2014-06-11 14:56:27 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobBWvMe7rvRApogdztW8CmG-DEP0N2eWa0ftJbvt01CBQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> wrote:
> And it's probably accepted by now that such a bahviour is not
> catastrophic, merely inconvenient.
I think the whole argument for having pg_hibernator is that getting
the block cache properly initialized is important. If it's not
important, then we don't need pg_hibernator in the first place. But
if it is important, then I think not loading unrelated blocks into
shared_buffers is also important.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-06-11 15:40:09 | Re: API change advice: Passing plan invalidation info from the rewriter into the planner? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-11 14:55:06 | Re: replication commands and log_statements |