Horton
Menu

Re: [PERFORM] DELETE vs TRUNCATE explanation

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com>, Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>, Harold A. Giménez <harold.gimenez@gmail.com>
Date: 2012-07-16T16:57:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-performance 
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> In my view, the elephant in the room here is that it's dramatically
> inefficient for every backend to send an fsync request on every block
> write.

Yeah.  This was better before the decision was taken to separate
bgwriter from checkpointer; before that, only local communication was
involved for the bulk of write operations (or at least so we hope).
I remain less than convinced that that split was really a great idea.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Scan the buffer pool just once, not once per fork, during relation drop.