Re: MultiXact\SLRU buffers configuration
От | Andrey Borodin |
---|---|
Тема | Re: MultiXact\SLRU buffers configuration |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 01FF6FFC-7379-43EA-B04A-673C98ABFAAF@yandex-team.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: MultiXact\SLRU buffers configuration (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: MultiXact\SLRU buffers configuration
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> On 20 Feb 2022, at 02:42, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2022-02-20 10:38:53 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: >> Back to this patch: assuming we can settle on a good-enough-for-now >> replacement algorithm, do we want to add this set of 7 GUCs? Does >> anyone else want to weigh in on that? > > I'm -0.2 on it, given that we have a better path forward. That’s a really good path forward, but it's discussed at least for 3.5 years[0]. And guaranteed not to be there until 2023.Gilles, Shawn, Dmitry expressed their opinion in lines with that the patch “is a must-have” referring to real pathologicalperformance degradation inflicted by SLRU cache starvation. And I can remember dozen of other incidents thatwould not happen if the patch was applied, e.g. this post is referring to the patch as a cure [1]. Best regards, Andrey Borodin. [0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20180814213500.GA74618%4060f81dc409fc.ant.amazon.com [1] https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2021/09/29/why-we-spent-the-last-month-eliminating-postgresql-subtransactions/#what-can-we-do-about-getting-rid-of-nessie
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: