| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC, POC] Don't require a NBuffer sized PrivateRefCount array of local buffer pins |
| Date: | 2014-04-09 13:59:07 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZdpx0t2WDXrBoROb1mSFvtUbghr2xbURBZmzOo1fzHfg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2014-04-09 09:17:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> > I've tried to reproduce problems around this (when I wrote this), but
>> > it's really hard to construct cases that need more than 8 pins. I've
>> > tested performance for those cases by simply not using the array, and
>> > while the performance suffers a bit, it's not that bad.
>>
>> Suspended queries won't do it?
>
> What exactly do you mean by "suspended" queries? Defined and started
> portals? Recursive query execution?
Open a cursor and fetch from it; leave it open while doing other things.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-09 14:09:44 | Re: [RFC, POC] Don't require a NBuffer sized PrivateRefCount array of local buffer pins |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-09 13:43:57 | Re: Proposal for Merge Join for Non '=' Operators |