On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Gurjeet Singh <gurj...@singh.im> wrote: >> And it's probably accepted by now that such a bahviour is not >> catastrophic, merely inconvenient. > > I think the whole argument for having pg_hibernator is that getting > the block cache properly initialized is important. If it's not > important, then we don't need pg_hibernator in the first place. But > if it is important, then I think not loading unrelated blocks into > shared_buffers is also important.
I was constructing a contrived scenario, something that would rarely happen in reality. I feel that the benefits of this feature greatly outweigh the minor performance loss caused in such an unlikely scenario. Best regards, -- Gurjeet Singh http://gurjeet.singh.im/ EDB www.EnterpriseDB.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers