| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: POC: Sharing record typmods between backends |
| Date: | 2017-08-13 03:30:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20170813033029.h7puphqj7nz5t5sg@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-08-12 22:52:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > Well, most of the potential usecases for dsmhash I've heard about so
> > far, don't actually benefit much from incremental growth. In nearly all
> > the implementations I've seen incremental move ends up requiring more
> > total cycles than doing it at once, and for parallelism type usecases
> > the stall isn't really an issue. So yes, I think this is something
> > worth considering. If we were to actually use DHT for shared caches or
> > such, this'd be different, but that seems darned far off.
>
> I think it'd be pretty interesting to look at replacing parts of the
> stats collector machinery with something DHT-based.
That seems to involve a lot more than this though, given that currently
the stats collector data doesn't entirely have to be in memory. I've
seen sites with a lot of databases with quite some per-database stats
data. Don't think we can just require that to be in memory :(
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-13 03:32:45 | Re: POC: Sharing record typmods between backends |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-08-13 03:28:41 | Re: Comment in snapbuild.c file |