Re: Proposing pg_hibernate

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@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