ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> wrote:
>> If shared_buffers(=NBuffers) is set to something big, this could give some 
>> memory churn.  And I think it's a bad idea to allocate something this 
>> large at checkpoint time, because what happens if that fails?  Really not 
>> the time you want to discover there's no RAM left.

> Hmm, but I think we need to copy buffer tags into bgwriter's local memory
> in order to avoid locking taga many times in the sorting.

I updated this patch to permanently allocate the working array as Greg
suggests, and to fix a bunch of commenting issues (attached).

However, I am completely unable to measure any performance improvement
from it.  Given the possible risk of out-of-memory failures, I think the
patch should not be applied without some direct proof of performance
benefits, and I don't see any.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: Sorting writes during checkpoint at 2008-04-16 04:22:13 from ITAGAKI Takahiro

Responses

• Re: Sorting writes during checkpoint at 2008-05-04 23:12:32 from Greg Smith

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira	Date: 2008-05-04 05:21:41
	Subject: Re: Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2008-05-04 00:55:31
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Multiline privileges in \z

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira	Date: 2008-05-04 05:21:41
	Subject: Re: Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2008-05-04 00:55:31
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Multiline privileges in \z