Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: "Dickson S(dot) Guedes" <listas(at)guedesoft(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer
Date: 2011-10-18 13:18:26
Message-ID: CA+U5nMKV8sVoX=Qp+-B4fsjTx5RBE2BgPwmviALfSE5Pm4v1UQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Dickson S. Guedes <listas(at)guedesoft(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> Ah ok! I started reviewing the v4 patch version, this is my comments:
>
> ...
>
>> Well, all the tests was running with the default postgresql.conf in my
>> laptop but I'll setup a more "real world" environment to test for
>> performance regression. Until now I couldn't notice any significant
>> difference in TPS before and after patch in a small environment. I'll
>> post something soon.
>
> Great testing, thanks. Likely will have no effect in non-I/O swamped
> environment, but no regression expected either.

Any reason or objection to committing this patch?

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2011-10-18 13:26:02 Re: new compiler warnings
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-10-18 13:09:13 Re: new compiler warnings