Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )
Date: 2009-08-13 23:21:09
Message-ID: 1250205669.24981.129.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 18:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Jeff Davis<pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> > Or, perhaps when the bgwriter is flushing dirty buffers, it can look for
> > opportunities to set hint bits or freeze tuples.
>
> One of the tricky things here is that the time you are mostly likely
> to want to do this is when you are loading a lot of data. But in that
> case shared buffers are likely to be written back to disk before
> transaction commit, so it'll be too early to do anything.

I think it would be useful in other cases, like avoiding repeated
freezing of different tuples on the same page.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2009-08-13 23:21:47 Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2009-08-13 23:20:23 Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2009-08-13 23:21:47 Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2009-08-13 23:20:23 Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )