Re: Proposing pg_hibernate - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Proposing pg_hibernate
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZtaLPinLC2nrXz2xrt_MJKK_m3VCNP8KtN0+pymc7pMg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposing pg_hibernate  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Proposing pg_hibernate  (Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> IMHO, all of these caveats, would affect a very small fraction of
>> use-cases and are eclipsed by the benefits this extension provides in
>> normal cases.
>
> I agree with you that there are only few corner cases where evicting
> shared buffers by this utility would harm, but was wondering if we could
> even save those, say if it would only use available free buffers.  I think
> currently there is no such interface and inventing a new interface for this
> case doesn't seem to reasonable unless we see any other use case of
> such a interface.

It seems like it would be best to try to do this at cluster startup
time, rather than once recovery has reached consistency.  Of course,
that might mean doing it with a single process, which could have its
own share of problems.  But I'm somewhat inclined to think that if
recovery has already run for a significant period of time, the blocks
that recovery has brought into shared_buffers are more likely to be
useful than whatever pg_hibernate would load.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #9652: inet types don't support min/max
Next
From: Gurjeet Singh
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposing pg_hibernate