Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0880764FE03 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:44:33 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 80135-09 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:44:29 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.187]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BBE364FD32 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:44:29 -0400 (AST) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c7so283699nfi.23 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:44:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.210.10.8 with SMTP id 8mr6208568ebj.7.1227714267498; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:44:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?80.222.79.63? (dsl-hkibrasgw2-fe4fde00-63.dhcp.inet.fi [80.222.79.63]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 31sm1455217nfu.9.2008.11.26.07.44.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:44:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <492D6ED8.5070105@enterprisedb.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:44:24 +0200 Organization: EnterpriseDB User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081018) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane CC: PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: Visibility map, partial vacuums References: <4905AE17.7090305@enterprisedb.com> <491D376B.9000608@enterprisedb.com> <491D7F52.6070908@enterprisedb.com> <4925664C.3090605@enterprisedb.com> <26361.1227467112@sss.pgh.pa.us> <492A6032.6080000@enterprisedb.com> <18086.1227537479@sss.pgh.pa.us> <492D4460.1000809@enterprisedb.com> <5856.1227705135@sss.pgh.pa.us> <492D4FF0.2000606@enterprisedb.com> <7144.1227707910@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <7144.1227707910@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Heikki Linnakangas X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200811/1742 X-Sequence-Number: 128454 Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> Well, considering how seldom new pages will be added to the visibility >>> map, it seems to me we could afford to send out a relcache inval event >>> when that happens. Then rd_vm_nblocks_cache could be treated as >>> trustworthy. > >> A relcache invalidation sounds awfully heavy-weight. > > It really isn't. Okay, then. I'll use relcache invalidation for both the FSM and visibility map. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com