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

Re: inpricise checkpoint stats

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: inpricise checkpoint stats
Date: 2006-03-23 04:50:00
Message-ID: 2923.1143089400@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
"Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> writes:
> The problematic line is "0 written" --

What's your point?  Those stats are correct for the current process (or
if not, better take it up with your kernel vendor) and we've never
stated that they are anything else than process-local stats.  In every
version of Postgres it's been possible that pages dirtied by one process
are actually written by some other process --- the bgwriter isn't doing
anything except altering the probabilities a bit.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Qingqing ZhouDate: 2006-03-23 05:37:41
Subject: Re: inpricise checkpoint stats
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-03-23 04:27:11
Subject: Re: [SQL] Function Parameters in GROUP BY clause cause errors

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