On 2019-02-06 08:50:45 +, Jamison, Kirk wrote:
> On February 6, 2019, 08:25AM +, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>
> >At Wed, 6 Feb 2019 06:29:15 +, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki"
> > wrote:
> >> Although I haven't looked deeply at Thomas's patch yet, there's currently
> >> no place to store the siz
Hi,
On 2019-01-31 16:13:22 +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> Hello
>
> Yeah, we have no consensus.
>
Are you planning to update the patch? Given there's not been much
progress here, I think we ough tot mark the CF entry as returned with
feedback for now.
> Another open question is about loggin
Hi,
On 2018-12-14 16:55:42 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 01:51:48PM +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> > Depends on this discussion:
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20181212053042.gk17...@paquier.xyz
> > If walreceiver will use GUC conninfo for startup - then yes,
Hi,
On 2019-01-18 19:57:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 4:23 PM and...@anarazel.de wrote:
> > My proposal for this was to attach a 'generation' to cache entries. Upon
> > access cache entries are marked to be of the current
> > generation.
On 2019-01-18 15:57:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 2:48 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Unfortunately, because we have not found something we are happy with, we
> >> have done nothing. I agree LRU can be expensive. What if we do some
> >> kind of clock
Hi,
On 2019-01-15 13:32:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, we *had* an LRU mechanism for the catcaches way back when. We got
> rid of it --- see commit 8b9bc234a --- because (a) maintaining the LRU
> info was expensive and (b) performance fell off a cliff in scenarios where
> the cache size limit
