| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Checkpointer starts before bgwriter to avoid missing fsync reque |
| Date: | 2012-06-01 14:33:01 |
| Message-ID: | 24914.1338561181@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 1 June 2012 14:59, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Ah. Well, as long as the overflowed fsyncs do get handled on the
>> requesting side, I see no bug here. No objection to changing the order
>> in which we launch the processes, but as Heikki says, it's not clear
>> that that is really going to make much difference.
> If I see those messages again, I guess you'll be right.
> If that happens I suggest just adding a short wait at bgwriter startup.
Why? Surely we are not that concerned about performance during the
startup transient. Also, it is very easy to imagine that adding a delay
would make startup performance worse not better anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-06-01 15:40:17 | pgsql: In pg_upgrade, report pre-PG 8.1 plpython helper functions left |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-06-01 14:30:28 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Checkpointer starts before bgwriter to avoid missing fsync reque |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2012-06-01 14:57:50 | Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-06-01 14:30:28 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Checkpointer starts before bgwriter to avoid missing fsync reque |