On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.har...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >>> Feature freeze is not the time to be looking for new ideas. I suggest >>> we save this for 8.5. > >> Well, we may not need a new idea. > > We don't really have an acceptable solution for the conflict with hint > bit behavior. The shutdown issue is minor, agreed, but that's not the > stumbling block.
Agreed on the shutdown issue. But, didn't this patch address the hint bit setting as discussed? After performing a cursory look at the patch, it appears that hint-bit changes are detected and a WAL entry is written on buffer flush if hint bits had been changed. I don't see anything wrong with this in theory. Am I missing something? Now, in the case where hint bits have been updated and a WAL record is required because the buffer is being flushed, requiring the WAL to be flushed up to that point may be a killer on performance. Has anyone tested it? -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
