| From: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de (Andres Freund) |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ivan Kartyshov <i(dot)kartyshov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem |
| Date: | 2016-09-02 03:19:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20160902031927.mchzocis5lnymykz@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-09-02 08:31:42 +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> I wonder whether we ought to just switch from the consistent method to
> the semiconsistent method and call it good.
+1. I think, before long, we're going to have to switch away from having
locks & partitions in the first place. So I don't see a problem relaxing
this. It's not like that consistency really buys you anything... I'd
even consider not using any locks.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-09-02 03:30:39 | Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-02 03:01:42 | Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem |