Autotuning of shared buffer size (was: Re: [HACKERS] Getting rid of AtEOXact Buffers (was Re: [Testperf-general] Re: [PERFORM] First set of OSDL Shared Memscalability results, some wierdness ...))

Trying to think a little out of the box, how common is it in modern operating systems to be able to swap out shared memory? Maybe we're not using the ARC algorithm correctly after all. The ARC algorithm does not consider the second level OS buffer cache in it's design. Maybe the total size of

Re: [HACKERS] Getting rid of AtEOXact Buffers (was Re: [Testperf-general] Re: [PERFORM] First set of OSDL Shared Memscalability results, some wierdness ...)

Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I realized that StrategyDirtyBufferList currently wasts a lot of time by first scanning over all the buffers that haven't even been hit since it's last call and neither have been dirty last time (and thus, are at the beginning of the list and can't be

Re: [HACKERS] Getting rid of AtEOXact Buffers (was Re: [Testperf-general] Re: [PERFORM] First set of OSDL Shared Memscalability results, some wierdness ...)

Seeing as I've missed the last N messages... I'll just reply to this one, rather than each of them in turn... Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 16.10.2004, 18:54:17: I wrote: Josh Berkus writes: First off, two test runs with OProfile are available at: http://khack.osdl.org/stp/298124/

Re: Re: [HACKERS] Getting rid of AtEOXact Buffers (was Re: [Testperf-general] Re: [PERFORM] First set of OSDL Shared Memscalability results, some wierdness ...)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If the resource owner is always responsible for releasing locked buffers, who releases the locks if the backend crashes? The ensuing system reset takes care of that. regards, tom lane ---(end of