On 05/20/2014 01:46 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Haribabu Kommi > <kommi.harib...@gmail.com> wrote: >> ... >> I Implemented a proof of concept patch to see whether the buffer pool >> split can improve the performance or not. >> >> Summary of the changes: >> 1. The priority buffers are allocated as continuous to the shared buffers. >> 2. Added new reloption parameter called "buffer_pool" to specify the >> buffer_pool user wants the table to use. > I'm not sure if storing the information of "priority table" into > database is good > because this means that it's replicated to the standby and the same table > will be treated with high priority even in the standby server. I can imagine > some users want to set different tables as high priority ones in master and > standby. There might be a possibility to override this in postgresql.conf for optimising what you described but for most uses it is best to be in the database, at least to get started.
Cheers -- Hannu Krosing PostgreSQL Consultant Performance, Scalability and High Availability 2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
