| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Cédric Villemain <cedric(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_rewarm status |
| Date: | 2013-12-19 19:26:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1wViFurANxj7x9VwXVJiRwJqRbdyzB7GZE1YSS3c3Y=xw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, absolutely. The first backend that needs a prefetch probably
> isn't going to get it in time. I think that's OK though. Once the
> background process is started, response times will be quicker...
> although possibly still not quick enough. We'd need to benchmark this
> to determine how quickly the background process can actually service
> requests. Does anybody have a good self-contained test case that
> showcases the benefits of prefetching?
>
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-12-19 19:33:28 | Re: pgsql: Allow time delayed standbys and recovery |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2013-12-19 19:19:21 | Re: pgsql: Allow time delayed standbys and recovery |