Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress

From: "Tomas Vondra" <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>
To: "Noah Misch" <noah(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Tomas Vondra" <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, "Greg Smith" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress
Date: 2011-08-29 11:44:12
Message-ID: dd9a08d0c9bf37f6c2b22b84dcb087cd.squirrel@sq.gransy.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 29 Srpen 2011, 7:47, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 03:57:16PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 27 Srpen 2011, 6:01, Noah Misch wrote:
>> > Could you remove this hazard by adding a step "2a. psql -c
>> CHECKPOINT"?
>>
>> I already do that, but it really does not solve the issue. It just
>> aligns
>> the first expected 'timed' checkpoint, it does not solve the problem
>> with
>> in-progress checkpoints unless the runs behave exactly the same (and
>> that's the boring case).
>
> To clarify, run that command _after_ the 10-minute pgbench run. It
> blocks until completion of both the in-progress checkpoint, if any,
> and the requested checkpoint.

I don't think this is going to help when there is a checkpoint in
progress, as the new CHECKPOINT will wait till the already running one
completes. It might force it to finish faster, but I still can't say how
much data was written when the pgbench was running.

Tomas

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-08-29 14:20:18 Re: spinlocks on HP-UX
Previous Message Jan Urbański 2011-08-29 08:16:07 Re: any results from PL summit?