From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
Date: | 2016-01-09 12:38:55 |
Message-ID: | 20160109123855.332ipz6rf7g2rjbp@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-01-09 18:04:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >
> > On 2016-01-07 11:27:13 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > > I read your patch and I know what I want to try to have a small and
> simple
> > > fix. I must admit that I have not really understood in which condition
> the
> > > checkpointer would decide to close a file, but that does not mean that
> the
> > > potential issue should not be addressed.
> >
> > There's a trivial example: Consider three tablespaces and
> > max_files_per_process = 2. The balancing can easily cause three files
> > being flushed at the same time.
> >
>
> Won't the same thing can occur without patch in mdsync() and can't
> we handle it in same way? In particular, I am referring to below code:
I don't see how that's corresponding - the problem is that current
proposed infrastructure keeps a kernel level (or fd.c in my versio) fd
open in it's 'pending flushes' struct. But since that isn't associated
with fd.c opening/closing files that fd isn't very meaningful.
> mdsync()
That seems to address different issues.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-01-09 12:54:01 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-01-09 12:34:39 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |