Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4D0BB7AF.4030503@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 17.12.2010 21:07, Tom Lane wrote: > IIUC, the problem is that the bufmgr might think that a GIST NSN is an > LSN that should affect when to force out a dirty buffer? What if we > taught it the difference? We could for example dedicate a pd_flags > bit to marking pages whose pd_lsn isn't actually an LSN. > > This solution would probably imply that all pages in the shared buffer > pool have to have a standard PageHeaderData header, not just an LSN at > the front as is assumed now. But that doesn't seem like a bad thing to > me, unless maybe we were dumb enough to not use a standard page header > in some of the secondary forks. I'm not very fond of expanding buffer manager's knowledge of the page layout. How about a new flag in the buffer desc, BM_UNLOGGED? There was some talk about skipping flushing of unlogged tables at checkpoints, I think we'd need BM_UNLOGGED for that anyway. Or I guess we could hang that behavior on the pd_flags bit too, but it doesn't seem like the right place for that information. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: