Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
Cc: Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
Date: 2017-01-25 21:20:42
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZ-s-588eytjmuBzU9_56mvdgHeqyjg6j23drVdzWf1CA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> I think the two need to be integrated much better than they are right now.
> They should certainly be in the same .so, and as others have mentioned the
> docs need to be fixed. For consistency, I think the name should just be
> pg_prewarm, as well as the prefix for the GUC.

Yikes. +1, definitely.

> It would also be handy of those functions
> accepted a different filename. That way you could reset shared_buffers to a
> known condition before running a test.

That would have some pretty unpleasant security implications unless it
is awfully carefully thought out. I doubt this has enough utility to
make it worth thinking that hard about.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2017-01-25 21:22:41 Re: Checksums by default?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-01-25 21:18:17 Re: pg_ls_dir & friends still have a hard-coded superuser check