Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Didn't we already go through this? He and Simon were pushing to bump up
> NUM_CLOG_BUFFERS and you were arguing that the test wasn't representative and
> some other clog.c would have to be reengineered to scale well to larger
> values.
AFAIR we never did get any clear explanation of what the test case is.
I guess it must be write-mostly, else lazy XID assignment would have
helped this by reducing the rate of XID consumption.
It's still true that I'm leery of a large increase in the number of
buffers without reengineering slru.c. That code was written on the
assumption that there were few enough buffers that a linear search
would be fine. I'd hold still for 16, or maybe even 32, but I dunno
how much impact that will have for such a test case.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
