From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
Date: | 2015-06-02 13:42:14 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.10.1506021534480.17822@sto |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Andres,
>> I would rather separate them, unless this is a blocker.
>
> I think it is a blocker.
Hmmm. This is an argument...
>> This version seems already quite effective and very light. ISTM that
>> adding a sort phase would mean reworking significantly how the
>> checkpointer processes pages.
>
> Meh. The patch for that wasn't that big.
Hmmm. I think it should be implemented as Tom suggested, that is per
chunks of shared buffers, in order to avoid allocating a "large" memory.
> The problem with doing this separately is that without the sorting this
> will be slower for throughput in a good number of cases. So we'll have
> yet another GUC that's very hard to tune.
ISTM that the two aspects are orthogonal, which would suggests two gucs
anyway.
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Abhijit Menon-Sen | 2015-06-02 14:03:19 | Re: pg_xlog -> pg_xjournal? |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-06-02 13:20:16 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |