From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
Date: | 2009-08-13 22:25:16 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070908131525o54e95dbbna868c370485c9381@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
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.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-08-13 22:35:32 | Re: [PERFORM] Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-08-13 22:24:21 | Re: [PERFORM] Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age100m? ) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-08-13 22:35:32 | Re: [PERFORM] Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-08-13 22:24:21 | Re: [PERFORM] Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age100m? ) |