Re: It's past time to redo the smgr API
От | Marc G. Fournier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: It's past time to redo the smgr API |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20040205192348.S4449@ganymede.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: It's past time to redo the smgr API (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: It's past time to redo the smgr API
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes: > > Why? Setting it to the checkpoint interval itself should be sufficient, > > no? All you want to do is avoid closing any files that were used during > > that last checkpoint interval, since there is a good chance you'd have to > > once more reopen them in the checkpoint interval ... > > If we did that then (on Windows) every DROP TABLE would take one extra > checkpoint interval to take effect in terms of freeing disk space. > Not sure if this is a good tradeoff for avoiding some file opens. k, but that would be a different scenario, no? As I mentioned in my original, a DROP TABLE would reset its timeout to -1, meaning to close it and drop it on the next checkpoint interval ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: