Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Quite aside from that, the fixed size of shared memory makes this seem
>> pretty impractical.
> Most state files are small. If one doesn't fit in the area reserved for
> this, it's written to disk as usual. It's just an optimization.
What evidence do you have for that assumption? And what's "small" anyway?
I think setting the size parameter for this would be a frightfully
difficult problem; the fact that average installations wouldn't use it
doesn't make that any better for those who would. After our bad
experiences with fixed-size FSM, I'm pretty wary of introducing new
fixed-size structures that the user is expected to figure out how to
size.
> I'm a bit disappointed by the performance gains. I would've expected
> more, given a decent battery-backed-up cache to buffer the WAL fsyncs.
> But it looks like they're still causing the most overhead, even with a
> battery-backed-up cache.
If you can't demonstrate order-of-magnitude speedups, I think we
shouldn't touch this.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
