On 2017-08-12 22:52:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > Well, most of the potential usecases for dsmhash I've heard about so > > far, don't actually benefit much from incremental growth. In nearly all > > the implementations I've seen incremental move ends up requiring more > > total cycles than doing it at once, and for parallelism type usecases > > the stall isn't really an issue. So yes, I think this is something > > worth considering. If we were to actually use DHT for shared caches or > > such, this'd be different, but that seems darned far off. > > I think it'd be pretty interesting to look at replacing parts of the > stats collector machinery with something DHT-based.
That seems to involve a lot more than this though, given that currently the stats collector data doesn't entirely have to be in memory. I've seen sites with a lot of databases with quite some per-database stats data. Don't think we can just require that to be in memory :( - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
