Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From andres@anarazel.de (Andres Freund)
Subject Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem
Date
Msg-id 20160902031927.mchzocis5lnymykz@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem  (Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2016-09-02 08:31:42 +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> I wonder whether we ought to just switch from the consistent method to
> the semiconsistent method and call it good.

+1. I think, before long, we're going to have to switch away from having
locks & partitions in the first place. So I don't see a problem relaxing
this. It's not like that consistency really buys you anything...  I'd
even consider not using any locks.

Andres



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem