Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Date: 2005-07-27 22:40:14
Message-ID: 200507271540.14528.josh@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon,

> I guess I'd be concerned that the poor bgwriter can't do all of this
> work. I was thinking about a separate log writer, so we could have both
> bgwriter and logwriter active simultaneously on I/O. It has taken a
> while to get bgwriter to perform its duties efficiently, so I'd rather
> not give it so many that it performs them all badly.

Speaking of which, now that I have a target value for wal_buffers, I want 
to re-test the bgwriter.   In my previous tests, varying the bgwriter 
settings on DBT2 had no discernable effect.

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2005-07-27 22:41:24
Subject: Re: VACUUM DATABASE
Previous:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2005-07-27 22:38:46
Subject: Sanity Check?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group