On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 17:40 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Gregory Stark wrote: > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I'm happy with the idea of a readahead process. I thought we were > > > implementing a BackgroundReader process for other uses. Is that dead > > > now? > > > > You and Bruce seem to keep resurrecting that idea. I've never liked it -- I > > always hated that in Oracle and thought it was a terrible kludge. > > I didn't think I was promoting the separate reader process after you had > the posix_fadvise() idea.
I think Greg is misinterpreting our occasional lack of exactness as disagreement. The end solution is the goal, not any of the discussed mechanisms. It's always good to have a name for it that sums up the goals rather than the methods e.g. frequent update optimisation rather than update-in-place. It would be good if the solutions for normal running and recovery were similar. Greg, please could you look into that? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
