| From: | "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, tender wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock |
| Date: | 2024-02-07 06:45:53 |
| Message-ID: | FBFC0B1F-F7A0-44DD-B5B7-611B49C1D563@yandex-team.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 7 Feb 2024, at 10:58, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> commit_timestamp_slru_buffers
>> transaction_slru_buffers
>> etc
>
> I am not sure we are exposing anything related to SLRU to the user,
I think we already tell something about SLRU to the user. I’d rather consider if “transaction_slru_buffers" is easier to understand than “transaction_buffers” ..
IMO transaction_buffers is clearer. But I do not have strong opinion.
> I
> mean transaction_buffers should make sense for the user that it stores
> transaction-related data in some buffers pool but whether that buffer
> pool is called SLRU or not doesn't matter much to the user IMHO.
+1
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2024-02-07 07:17:04 | Re: table inheritance versus column compression and storage settings |
| Previous Message | Nikolay Shaplov | 2024-02-07 06:44:52 | Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine |