| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BGWriter latch, power saving |
| Date: | 2012-01-04 08:11:19 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+8FKhOhGM++E48zaqTOSDmKkdTjRN5tw=bghYCTkSBhw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Setting a latch that's already set is fast,
> but surely it's even faster to not even try.
Agreed. I think we should SetLatch() at the first point a backend
writes a dirty buffer because the bgwriter has been inactive.
Continually waking the bgwriter makes it harder for it to return to sleep.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-01-04 08:26:57 | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-01-04 07:24:32 | Re: BGWriter latch, power saving |