Re: Proposing pg_hibernate - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Proposing pg_hibernate
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobBWvMe7rvRApogdztW8CmG-DEP0N2eWa0ftJbvt01CBQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposing pg_hibernate  (Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im>)
Responses Re: Proposing pg_hibernate  (Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im> wrote:
> And it's probably accepted by now that such a bahviour is not
> catastrophic, merely inconvenient.

I think the whole argument for having pg_hibernator is that getting
the block cache properly initialized is important.  If it's not
important, then we don't need pg_hibernator in the first place.  But
if it is important, then I think not loading unrelated blocks into
shared_buffers is also important.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: replication commands and log_statements
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: API change advice: Passing plan invalidation info from the rewriter into the planner?