Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST
Date: 2010-12-17 19:22:35
Message-ID: 4034.1292613755@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 17.12.2010 21:07, Tom Lane wrote:
>> IIUC, the problem is that the bufmgr might think that a GIST NSN is an
>> LSN that should affect when to force out a dirty buffer? What if we
>> taught it the difference? We could for example dedicate a pd_flags
>> bit to marking pages whose pd_lsn isn't actually an LSN.

> I'm not very fond of expanding buffer manager's knowledge of the page
> layout. How about a new flag in the buffer desc, BM_UNLOGGED?

That could work too, if you can explain how the flag comes to be set
without a bunch of ugliness all over the system. I don't want callers
of ReadBuffer to have to supply the bit for example.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2010-12-17 19:23:59 Re: proposal: FOREACH-IN-ARRAY (probably for 9.2?)
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-12-17 19:19:47 Re: ps_status on fastpath