Re: Error with index on unlogged table
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Error with index on unlogged table |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20151209110423.GI28762@awork2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Error with index on unlogged table (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Error with index on unlogged table
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-12-09 19:36:11 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2015-12-09 16:30:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> > I'm kinda wondering if it wouldn't have been better to go through shared > >> > buffers in ResetUnloggedRelationsInDbspaceDir() instead of using > >> > copy_file(). > >> > >> For deployment with large shared_buffers settings, wouldn't that be > >> actually more costly than the current way of doing? We would need to > >> go through all the buffers at least once and look for the INIT_FORKNUM > >> present to flush them. > > > > We could just check the file sizes on disk, and the check for the > > contents of all the pages for each file. > > By doing it at replay, the flushes are spread across time. And by > doing it at the end of recovery, all the flushes would be grouped. Do > you think that's fine? The point is that we'd no flushes, because the data would come directly from shared buffers...
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: