| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) |
| Date: | 2010-08-27 22:13:11 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=77=zk43QfYtHgEb=KQ81ejvNs6WyRncmWhScP@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Well, yes they are. They cause unnecessary process wakeups and thereby
>> consume cycles even when the database is idle. See for example a
>> longstanding complaint here:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252129
>>
>> If we're going to go to the trouble of having a mechanism like this,
>> I'd like it to fix that problem so I can close out that bug.
>
> The way the background writer wakes up periodically to absorb fsync requests
> is already way too infrequent on a busy system.
Maybe instead of a fixed-duration sleep we could wake it up when it
needs to do something.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-28 01:11:53 | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-08-27 22:10:49 | Re: refactoring comment.c |