Re: clog_buffers to 64 in 8.3? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: clog_buffers to 64 in 8.3?
Date
Msg-id 200709140321.l8E3LHA20226@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: clog_buffers to 64 in 8.3?  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
This has been saved for the 8.4 release:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greg Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> > I find it entirely likely that simply changing the [NUM_CLOG_BUFFERS] 
> > constant would be a net loss on many workloads.
> 
> Would it be reasonable to consider changing it to a compile-time option 
> before the 8.3 beta?  From how you describe the potential downsides, it 
> sounds to me like something that specific distributors might want to 
> adjust based on their target customer workloads and server scale.  That 
> would make it available as a tunable to those aiming at larger systems 
> with enough CPU/memory throughput that the additional overhead of more 
> linear searches is trumped by the reduced potential for locking 
> contention, as appears to be the case in Sun's situation here.
> 
> --
> * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>        subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
>        message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://www.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] ascii() for utf8
Next
From: "Sergey E. Koposov"
Date:
Subject: Re: What is happening on buildfarm member dugong