X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EAB83A3E03 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:39:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 99973-07 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:39:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pns.mm.eutelsat.org (pns.mm.eutelsat.org [194.214.173.227]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F953A3CA4 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:39:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nts-03.mm.eutelsat.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pns.mm.eutelsat.org (8.11.6/linuxconf) with ESMTP id iA5Haih05737; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 18:36:44 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (accesspoint.mm.eutelsat.org [194.214.173.4]) by nts-03.mm.eutelsat.org (8.11.6/linuxconf) with ESMTP id iA5Hd8f27161; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 18:39:08 +0100 Message-ID: <418BBAB6.7020707@bigfoot.com> Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 18:39:02 +0100 From: Gaetano Mendola User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Treat Cc: Neil Conway , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ... References: <20041103155855.O82047@ganymede.hub.org> <418B7302.8080803@samurai.com> <418B7696.3050302@bigfoot.com> <200411050836.02127.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <200411050836.02127.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200411/174 X-Sequence-Number: 60746 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Robert Treat wrote: | On Friday 05 November 2004 07:48, Gaetano Mendola wrote: | |>Neil Conway wrote: |> > Gaetano Mendola wrote: |> >> Right but we can create a new segment and use it too. I don't know how |> >> these segments are used but I used to do it in the past, of course you |> >> have |> >> to create a memory manager that handle not ccntinuous segments. |> > |> > The TelegraphCQ folks have already done this: |> > |> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-05/msg00336.php |> > |> > I haven't had a chance to look at the patch, though. |> |>Not bad, however that post is more than one year old. Implement a resizable |>shared memory could really improve postgres performances ? |> | | | Well it certainly would in the sense that we could make the database a little | more self tuning. Yes, but someone ( I do not remember who in this list ) is scared about to be "paged" during the night because the DB is slow because a planned changed autonomously. Unfortunatelly this is the "major" argument ( I do not understand why ) against have a database self tuning. Regards Gaetano Mendola -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBi7qz7UpzwH2SGd4RAtaUAKC2Fij5hA9FF+TxFEGBq72LSGahpgCg4+D3 OTeNKU02YK8OgsJCaODZLn0= =CI+E -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----