| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aidar Imamov <a(dot)imamov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Joseph Koshakow <koshy44(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add pg_buffercache_evict_all() and pg_buffercache_mark_dirty[_all]() functions |
| Date: | 2025-04-11 13:36:47 |
| Message-ID: | u5agveyktsgyi3eutjte4rzopjpm5ajfvr5x53k55o5ypjcjrq@kpn67c4fck6g |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2025-04-10 13:50:36 +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Thanks for the patch! That sounds like a great addition. I was doing some
> tests and did not see any issues. Also while doing the tests I thouhgt that it
> could be useful to evict only from a subset of NUMA nodes (now that NUMA
> awareness is in). We'd need to figure out what to do for buffers that are spread
> across NUMA nodes though.
>
> Does that sound like an idea worth to spend time on? (If so, I'd be happy to work
> on it).
I'm not sure that's common enough to warrant its own function. You can do that
with pg_buffercache_evict(), it'll be slower than pg_buffercache_evict_all(),
but given that determining the numa node already is somewhat expensive, I'm
not sure it's going to make that big a difference.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2025-04-11 13:39:15 | Re: Correct documentation for protocol version |
| Previous Message | YeXiu | 2025-04-11 13:29:15 | Re: Feature Recommendations for Logical Subscriptions |