| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RC2 and open issues |
| Date: | 2004-12-21 04:09:28 |
| Message-ID: | 200412210409.iBL49Sc04207@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I am confused. If we change the percentage to be X% of the entire
> > buffer cache, and we set it to 1%, and we exit when either the dirty
> > pages or % are reached, don't we end up just scanning the first 1% of
> > the cache over and over again?
>
> Exactly. But 1% would be uselessly small with this definition. Offhand
> I'd think something like 50% might be a starting point; maybe even more.
> What that says is that a page isn't a candidate to be written out by the
> bgwriter until it's fallen halfway down the LRU list.
So we are not scanning by buffer address but using the LRU list? Are we
sure they are mostly dirty?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-12-21 04:20:46 | Re: RC2 and open issues |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-12-21 04:05:36 | Re: RC2 and open issues |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-12-21 04:20:46 | Re: RC2 and open issues |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-12-21 04:05:36 | Re: RC2 and open issues |