Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart
Date
Msg-id 94B56B9C-025A-463F-BC57-DF5B15B8E808@anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On April 18, 2025 11:17:21 AM GMT+02:00, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> Doesn't that achieve the goal with fewer steps, using only
>portable* POSIX stuff, and keeping all pointers stable?  I understand
>that pointer stability may not be required (I can see roughly how that
>argument is constructed), but isn't it still better to avoid having to
>prove that and deal with various other problems completely?

I think we should flat out reject any approach that does not maintain pointer stability.  It would restrict future
optimizationsa lot if we can't rely on that (e.g. not materializing tuples when transporting them from worker to
leader;pointering datastructures in shared buffers). 

Greetings,

Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)"
Date:
Subject: RE: Parallel heap vacuum
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart