Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations
Date
Msg-id 20362.1028554864@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations  (Greg Copeland <greg@CopelandConsulting.Net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Greg Copeland <greg@copelandconsulting.net> writes:
> On Sat, 2002-08-03 at 21:01, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * Local bufmgr semantics are twiddled to reflect this reality --- in
>> particular, data in local buffers can be held across transactions, there
>> is no end-of-transaction write (much less fsync).  A TEMP table that
>> isn't too large might never touch disk at all.

> Curious.  Is there currently such a criteria?  What exactly constitutes
> "too large"?

"too large" means "doesn't fit in the local buffer set".  At the moment
the maximum number of local buffers seems to be frozen at 64.  I was
thinking of exposing that as a configuration parameter while we're at
it.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Error: missing chunk number ...