| From: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "Jason Petersen *EXTERN*" <jason(at)citusdata(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages? |
| Date: | 2014-04-22 07:32:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAOeZVid6z5VGhbyyu31=DGLkaY3kqNhrCu0HPsW2p15nAo0LzQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>wrote:
> Jason Petersen wrote:
> > Yes, we obviously want a virtual clock. Focusing on the use of
> gettimeofday seems silly to me: it was
> > something quick for the prototype.
> >
> > The problem with the clocksweeps is they don’t actually track the
> progression of “time” within the
> > PostgreSQL system.
>
> Would it make sense to just cache the result of the latest gettimeofday()
> call
> and use that as an approximation for wall time?
> The busier the system is, the more accurate that should be.
>
>
That sounds...risky. How will the invalidation/updation of the cache work?
How will we track the time window in which the cached value is still valid
and applicable?
My first thoughts only. I may be missing the point though.
Regards,
Atri
--
Regards,
Atri
*l'apprenant*
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2014-04-22 09:03:22 | Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages? |
| Previous Message | Albe Laurenz | 2014-04-22 07:29:08 | Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages? |