Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah --- I think wall-clock-based throttling is fundamentally the wrong
>> thing anyway. Are we going to start needing a CPU speed measurement to
>> tune the algorithm with? Not the place to be going. But driving it off
>> the number of allocations that've been done could be sensible. (OTOH,
>> that means you need a central counter, which itself would be a
>> bottleneck.)
> sure -- note we already track that in BufferStrategyControl
> (everything in buffer allocation is already centrally managed
> essentially).
Indeed, but I'd think getting rid of that property would be one of the
top priorities for any attempt to do anything at all in this area of
the code.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
