Re: Priority table or Cache table

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 05/20/2014 01:46 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Haribabu Kommi
>> <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I Implemented a proof of concept patch to see whether the buffer pool
>>> split can improve the performance or not.
>>>
>>> Summary of the changes:
>>> 1. The priority buffers are allocated as continuous to the shared buffers.
>>> 2. Added new reloption parameter called "buffer_pool" to specify the
>>> buffer_pool user wants the table to use.
>> I'm not sure if storing the information of "priority table" into
>> database is good
>> because this means that it's replicated to the standby and the same table
>> will be treated with high priority even in the standby server. I can imagine
>> some users want to set different tables as high priority ones in master and
>> standby.
> There might be a possibility to override this in postgresql.conf for
> optimising what you described but for most uses it is best to be in
> the database, at least to get started.

Overriding the setting in postgresql.conf rather than that in database might
confuse users because it's opposite order of the priority of the GUC setting.

Or, what about storig the setting into flat file like replication slot?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao