On Jun 28, 2007, at 7:55 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
>> Do you need to increase shared_buffers in such case?
> If you have something going wild creating dirty buffers with a high
> usage count faster than they are being written to disk, increasing
> the size of the shared_buffers cache can just make the problem
> worse--now you have an ever bigger pile of dirty mess to shovel at
> checkpoint time. The existing background writers are particularly
> unsuited to helping out in this situation, I think the new planned
> implementation will be much better.
Is this still a serious issue with LDC? I share Greg Stark's concern
that we're going to end up wasting a lot of writes.
Perhaps part of the problem is that we're using a single count to
track buffer usage; perhaps we need separate counts for reads vs writes?
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Michael Enke||Date: 2007-06-29 13:28:17|
|Subject: Re: self defined data type "with limit"?|
|Previous:||From: Bernd Helmle||Date: 2007-06-29 13:09:30|
|Subject: pg_dump and minor versions|