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: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2011-08-12T12:35:05Z

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 Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

>  But it will be
> a loser to apply the optimization to data sets that would otherwise
> have fit in shared_buffers.

Spoiling the cache is a bad plan, even if it makes the current query faster.

I think we should make the optimisation stronger still and use
FADV_DONT_NEED on blocks that fall from the ring buffer. Spoiling the
OS cache is a problem as well.

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services