| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BufFreelistLock |
| Date: | 2010-12-10 13:45:44 |
| Message-ID: | 1291988678-sup-5714@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Jim Nasby's message of jue dic 09 16:54:24 -0300 2010:
> Ideally, the clock sweep would be run by bgwriter and not individual backends. In that case it shouldn't matter much what the performance of the sweep is. To do that I think we'd want the bgwriter to target there being X number of buffers on the free list instead of (or in addition to) targeting how many dirty buffers need to be written. This would mirror what operating systems do; they strive to keep X number of pages on the free list so that when a process needs memory it can get it quickly.
Isn't it what it does if you set bgwriter_lru_maxpages to some very
large value?
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | BRUSSER Michael | 2010-12-10 14:00:42 | Re: initdb failure with Postgres 8.4.4 |
| Previous Message | Vaibhav Kaushal | 2010-12-10 12:52:43 | Re: Anyone for SSDs? |