| From: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposing pg_hibernate |
| Date: | 2014-06-12 04:17:29 |
| Message-ID: | CABwTF4Xyt5H+Px5CdN5z9eWpDKCS7NVKHL+gNhQqXxFeYyNP_w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> wrote:
>> And it's probably accepted by now that such a bahviour is not
>> catastrophic, merely inconvenient.
>
> I think the whole argument for having pg_hibernator is that getting
> the block cache properly initialized is important. If it's not
> important, then we don't need pg_hibernator in the first place. But
> if it is important, then I think not loading unrelated blocks into
> shared_buffers is also important.
I was constructing a contrived scenario, something that would rarely
happen in reality. I feel that the benefits of this feature greatly
outweigh the minor performance loss caused in such an unlikely scenario.
Best regards,
--
Gurjeet Singh http://gurjeet.singh.im/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2014-06-12 04:22:01 | Re: lo_create(oid, bytea) breaks every extant release of libpq |
| Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2014-06-12 04:01:16 | Re: Proposing pg_hibernate |