On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 8:07 PM, David G Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jim Nasby-2 wrote >>> I feel that if there is no memory pressure, frankly it doesnt matter much >>> about what gets out and what not. The case I am specifically targeting is >>> when the clocksweep gets to move about a lot i.e. high memory pressure >>> workloads. Of course, I may be totally wrong here. >> >> Well, there's either memory pressure or there isn't. If there isn't then >> it's all moot *because we're not evicting anything*. > > The trade-off I'm seeing here is between measuring when there is no memory > pressure - and thus eating at performance while not actually evicting > buffers - and not measuring but then encountering memory pressure and not > having a clue as to what should be evicted.
I believe that for the intended use discussed in this thread, a compile-time switch would be more than enough control, and it would avoid that tradeoff. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
