Am 23.01.14 02:14, schrieb Jim Nasby: > On 1/19/14, 5:51 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> Postgres is far from being the only application that wants this; many >>> >people resort to tmpfs because of this: >>> >https://lwn.net/Articles/499410/ >> Yes, we covered the possibility of using tmpfs much earlier in the >> thread, and came to the conclusion that temp files can be larger >> than memory so tmpfs isn't the solution here.:) > > Although... instead of inventing new APIs and foisting this work onto > applications, perhaps it would be better to modify tmpfs such that it > can handle a temp space that's larger than memory... possibly backing > it with X amount of real disk and allowing it/the kernel to decide > when to passively move files out of the in-memory tmpfs and onto disk.
This is exactly what I'd expect from a file system that's suitable for tmp purposes. The current tmpfs better should have been named memfs or so, since it lacks the dedicated disk backing storage. Regards, Andreas -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
