On 1/13/14, 3:04 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
I think the above is pretty simple for both interaction (allow us to inject a
clean page into the file page cache) and policy (forget it after you hand it to
us, then remember it again when we hand it back to you clean). And I think it
would pretty likely be an improvement over what we currently do. But I think
it is probably the wrong way to get the improvement. I think the real problem
is that we don't trust ourselves to manage more of the memory ourselves.
As far as I know, we still don't have a publicly disclosable and readily
reproducible test case for the reports of performance degradation when we have
more than 8GB in shared_buffers. If we had one of those, we could likely reduce
the double buffering problem by fixing our own scalability issues and therefore
taking responsibility for more of the data ourselves.
While I agree we need to fix the 8GB limit, we're always going to have a
problem here unless we put A LOT of new abilities into our memory capabilities.
Like, for example, stealing memory from shared buffers to support a sort. Or
implementing a system-wide limit on WORK_MEM. Or both.
I would much rather teach the OS and Postgres to work together on memory
management than for us to try and re-implement everything the OS has already
done for us.
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect j...@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: