Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-08-14T11:07:06Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Split work of bgwriter between 2 processes: bgwriter and checkpointer.
- 806a2aee3791 9.2.0 cited
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree that > something's missing. I'm quoting you completely out of context here, but yes, something is missing. We can't credibly do one test on usage count in shared buffers and then start talking about how buffer management is all wrong. My own patch requires more test evidence before we can commit it, which is why I hadn't published it before now. I'll endeavour to do that now its on the table. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services