X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD27475EDF for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 00:24:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from houston.familyhealth.com.au (unknown [203.59.48.253]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84DE4475E14 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 00:24:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by houston.familyhealth.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) id h464OdF04397 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:24:39 +0800 (WST) (envelope-from chriskl@familyhealth.com.au) Received: from mariner (mariner.internal [192.168.0.101]) by houston.familyhealth.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id h464OPJ04279; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:24:25 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: <04bb01c31387$637105d0$6500a8c0@fhp.internal> From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" To: "Tom Lane" Cc: "Hackers" References: <040801c31371$b7766e10$6500a8c0@fhp.internal> <22222.1052194401@sss.pgh.pa.us> Subject: Re: tablespace patch Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 12:24:30 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-scanner: scanned by Inflex 0.1.5c - (http://www.inflex.co.za/) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-12.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) X-Archive-Number: 200305/92 X-Sequence-Number: 38599 > Well, they shouldn't be using Relations, for sure. Something based > on knowing only RelFileNode would be appropriate. Vadim wrote a few > messages about this back when he was still active --- check the > archives. > > In my mind a touchstone for a proper redesign of this layer is that > the checkpoint process should not be handicapped by not being a full > backend. Right now, all checkpoint buffer writes happen via > smgrblindwrt, which is a nontrivial performance loss. Ideally the > notion of "blind write" should go away, because you shouldn't need > anything more than the RelFileNode and block number, which are both > available from the shared buffer descriptor. Hmmm...might be a bit out of my league... I'll look into it all, but something tells me it'll take me quite a while :) Chris