On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > I'm worried about the overlap with pgfincore. It's pretty well > established in this space, and has about 73% feature overlap with > pg_prewarm, while having more features all together. So it would seem > to me that it would be better to add whatever is missing to pgfincore > instead. Or split pgfincore, as suggested above, but that would upset > existing users. But adding severely overlapping stuff for no technical > reasons (or there any?) doesn't sound like a good idea.
73%? I think it's got about 15% overlap. The biggest problem with pgfincore from my point of view is that it only works under Linux, whereas I use a MacOS X machine for my development, and there is also Windows to think about. Even if that were fixed, though, I feel we ought to have something in the core distribution. This patch got more +1s than 95% of what gets proposed on hackers. > Also, Robert has accurately described this as "mechanism, not policy". > That's fine, that's what all of our stuff is. Replication and most of > postgresql.conf suffers from that. Eventually someone will want to > create a way to save and restore various caches across server restarts, > as discussed before. Would that mean there will be a third way to do > all this, or could we at least align things a bit so that such a > facility could use most of the proposed prewarming stuff? (Patches for > the cache restoring exist, so it should be possible to predict this a > little bit.) Well, pg_buffercache + pg_prewarm is enough to save and restore shared buffers. Not the OS cache, but we don't have portable code to query the OS cache yet anyway. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
