From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing - V18 |
Date: | 2016-03-10 23:30:37 |
Message-ID: | 20160310233037.ozdeg6cxsuxak36c@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-03-11 00:23:56 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> As you wish. I thought that understanding the underlying performance model
> with sequential writes written in chunks is important for the admin, and as
> this guc would have an impact on performance it should be hinted about,
> including the limits of its effect where large bases will converge to random
> io performance. But maybe that is not the right place.
I do agree that that's something interesting to document somewhere. But
I don't think any of the current places in the documentation are a good
fit, and it's a topic much more general than the feature we're debating
here. I'm not volunteering, but a good discussion of storage and the
interactions with postgres surely would be a significant improvement to
the postgres docs.
- Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-03-11 00:32:15 | Re: pgsql: Provide much better wait information in pg_stat_activity. |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2016-03-10 23:23:56 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing - V18 |