| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, "Sherry Moore" <sherry(dot)moore(at)sun(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au>, "PGSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Doug Rady" <drady(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant |
| Date: | 2007-03-12 10:08:37 |
| Message-ID: | 1173694117.3641.536.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 09:14 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 16:21 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> > With the default
> > value of scan_recycle_buffers(=0), VACUUM seems to use all of buffers in pool,
> > just like existing sequential scans. Is this intended?
>
> Yes, but its not very useful for testing to have done that. I'll do
> another version within the hour that sets N=0 (only) back to current
> behaviour for VACUUM.
New test version enclosed, where scan_recycle_buffers = 0 doesn't change
existing VACUUM behaviour.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| scan_recycle_buffers.v3.patch | text/x-patch | 22.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Galy Lee | 2007-03-12 11:25:15 | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 3 |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-03-12 09:14:28 | Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant |