From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Bgwriter behavior |
Date: | 2005-01-01 17:47:16 |
Message-ID: | 1104601635.3978.1258.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 17:01, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > Well, I think we're saying: its not in 8.0 now, and we take our time to
> > consider patches for 8.1 and accept the situation that the parameter
> > names/meaning will change in next release.
>
> I have no problem doing something for 8.0 if we can find something that
> meets all the items I mentioned.
>
> One idea would be to just remove bgwriter_percent. Beta/RC users would
> still have it in their postgresql.conf, but it is commented out so it
> should be OK. If they uncomment it their server would not start but we
> could just tell testers to remove it. I see that as better than having
> conflicting parameters.
Can't say I like that at first thought. I'll think some more though...
> Another idea is to have bgwriter_percent be the percent of the buffer it
> will scan.
Hmmm....well that was my original suggestion (bg2.patch on 12 Dec)
(...though with a bug, as Neil pointed out)
> We could default that to 50% or 100%, but we then need to
> make sure all beta/RC users update their postgresql.conf with the new
> default because the commented-out default will not be correct.
...we just differ/ed on what the default should be...
> At this point I see these as our only two viable options, aside from
> doing nothing.
> I realize our current behavior requires a full scan of the buffer cache,
> but how often is the bgwriter_maxpages limit met? If it is not a full
> scan is done anyway, right?
Well, if you heavy a very heavy read workload then that would be a
problem. I was more worried about concurrency in a heavy write
situation, but I can see your point, and agree.
(Idea #1 still suffers from this, so we should rule it out...)
> It seems the only way to really add
> functionality is to change bgwriter_precent to control how much of the
> buffer is scanned.
OK. I think you've persuaded me on idea #2, if I understand you right:
bgwriter_percent = 50 (default)
bgwriter_maxpages = 100 (default)
percent is the number of shared_buffers we scan, limited by maxpages.
(I'll code it up in a couple of hours when the kids are in bed)
--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-01 18:22:58 | Re: [HACKERS] Bgwriter behavior |
Previous Message | lsunley | 2005-01-01 17:09:05 | Is there a psql function equivalent to a session log |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-01 18:22:58 | Re: [HACKERS] Bgwriter behavior |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-01-01 17:01:54 | Re: [HACKERS] Bgwriter behavior |