Greg Smith <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > ... Part of the reason this feature > hasn't been been perceived as more valuable is because just letting the > two cache levels involved here sort out what's really valuable or not > can often outperform what an application developer thinks the optimal > configuration will be. Or to put it even more clearly: the only way that pinning particular tables into RAM could beat letting the caching algorithm take care of it is if the caching algorithm is seriously suboptimal. Therefore, it would make more sense to put development effort into improving the cache algorithm than to put it into giving the DBA a rather blunt instrument for overriding the cache algorithm. We've already made several rounds of improvements of that kind, and are quite happy to consider more. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
