On 26/07/14 21:05, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> More advanced features, but with much more impact on the code, would be to
>> be able to change the size at database/table level.
>
> That'd be pretty horrible because the size of pages in shared_buffers
> wouldn't be uniform anymore.
>
>
Possibly stopping at the tablespace level might be more straightforward.
To avoid messing up the pages in shared buffers we'd perhaps need
something like several shared buffer pools - each with either its own
blocksize or associated with a (set of) tablespace(s).
Obviously this sort of thing has a pretty big architecture/code impact,
probably better to consider a 1st iteration with it being initdb
specifiable only (as that would still be very convenient)!
Regards
Mark
