On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Mithun Cy <mithun...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Sorry I took some time on this please find latest patch with addressed > review comments. Apart from fixes for comments I have introduced a new GUC > variable for the pg_autoprewarm "buff_dump_interval". So now we dump the > buffer pool metadata at every buff_dump_interval secs. Currently > buff_dump_interval can be set only at startup time. I did not choose to do > the dumping at checkpoint time, as it appeared these 2 things are not much > related and keeping it independent would be nice for usage. Also overhead > of any communication between them can be avoided. > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> > wrote: > > IMO it would be better to add this functionality to pg_prewarm instead > of creating another contrib module. That would reduce confusion and reduce > > the amount of code necessary. > > I have merged pg_autoprewarm module into pg_prewarm, This is just the > directory merge, Functionality merge is not possible pg_prewarm is just a > utility function with specific signature to load a specific relation at > runtime, where as pg_autoprewarm is a bgworker which dumps current buffer > pool and load it during startup time. > > > Presumably the first 4 numbers will vary far less than blocknum, so it's > probably worth reversing the order here (or at least put blocknum first). > > function sort_cmp_func is for qsort so orderly comparison is needed to say > which is bigger or smaller, If we put blocknum first, we cannot decide same. > > > AFAICT this isn't necessary since palloc will error itself if it fails. > > Fixed. > > > Since there's no method to change DEFAULT_DUMP_FILENAME, I would call it > what it is: DUMP_FILENAME. > > Fixed. > > > Also, maybe worth an assert to make sure there was enough room for the > complete filename. That'd need to be a real check if this was configurable > > anyway. > > I think if we make it configurable I think I can put that check. > > > + if (!avoid_dumping) > > + dump_now(); > > Perhaps that check should be moved into dump_now() itself... > > Fixed. > > Moved to next CF with "needs review" status. Regards, Hari Babu Fujitsu Australia
