Request a Demo
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: autoprewarm_dump_now - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: autoprewarm_dump_now
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoaJx5mbuXbk0RXiQ=p+xA4kaw+UP7tyUvyQTmgjw6rB7A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: autoprewarm_dump_now  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 9:21 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Is that solving a real-world problem?  If it is, shouldn't we be
> looking for a different approach that doesn't require such a huge
> amount of memory?

Upthread, Heikki said that this function currently fails with
shared_buffers>409GB. While I'm not opposed to a more efficient
solution, it seems reasonable to me to suppose that if you've got
shared_buffers>409GB, you're able to afford having this function use
>1GB.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg18: Virtual generated columns are not (yet) safe when superuser selects from them
Next
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: Add comment explaining why queryid is int64 in pg_stat_statements