Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3
Date: 2007-06-25 17:13:46
Message-ID: 1051.1182791626@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On further thought, there is one workload where removing the non-LRU
> part would be counterproductive:

> If you have a system with a very bursty transaction rate, it's possible
> that when it's time for a checkpoint, there hasn't been any WAL logged
> activity since last checkpoint, so we skip it. When that happens, the
> buffer cache might still be full of dirty pages, because of hint bit
> updates. That still isn't a problem on it's own, but if you then do a
> huge batch update, you have to flush those dirty pages at that point. It
> would be better to trickle flush those dirty pages during the idle period.

But wouldn't the LRU-based scan accomplish that?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-06-25 17:17:47 remove unused "caller" arg from stringToQualifiedNameList
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2007-06-25 17:05:02 Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3