Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
> I think the two need to be integrated much better than they are right now.
> They should certainly be in the same .so, and as others have mentioned the
> docs need to be fixed. For consistency, I think the name should just be
> pg_prewarm, as well as the prefix for the GUC.

Yikes.  +1, definitely.

> It would also be handy of those functions
> accepted a different filename. That way you could reset shared_buffers to a
> known condition before running a test.

That would have some pretty unpleasant security implications unless it
is awfully carefully thought out.  I doubt this has enough utility to
make it worth thinking that hard about.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company