On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2014-06-04 10:24:13 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Gurjeet Singh <gurj...@singh.im> wrote: >> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > It seems like it would be best to try to do this at cluster startup >> > > time, rather than once recovery has reached consistency. Of course, >> > > that might mean doing it with a single process, which could have its >> > > own share of problems. But I'm somewhat inclined to think that if >> > > recovery has already run for a significant period of time, the blocks >> > > that recovery has brought into shared_buffers are more likely to be >> > > useful than whatever pg_hibernate would load. >> > >> > I am not absolutely sure of the order of execution between recovery >> > process and the BGWorker, but ... >> > >> > For sizeable shared_buffers size, the restoration of the shared >> > buffers can take several seconds. >> >> Incase of recovery, the shared buffers saved by this utility are >> from previous shutdown which doesn't seem to be of more use >> than buffers loaded by recovery. > > Why? The server might have been queried if it's a hot standby one?
I think that's essentially the same point Amit is making. Gurjeet is arguing for reloading the buffers from the previous shutdown at end of recovery; IIUC, Amit, you, and I all think this isn't a good idea. -- 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
