Re: Just-in-time Background Writer Patch+Test Results

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Just-in-time Background Writer Patch+Test Results
Date: 2007-09-07 01:08:53
Message-ID: 8063.1189127333@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2007 at 11:27 AM, in message
> <Pine(dot)GSO(dot)4(dot)64(dot)0709061121020(dot)14491(at)westnet(dot)com>, Greg Smith
> <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> wrote:
>> With the default delay of 200ms, this has the LRU-writer scanning the
>> whole pool every 1 second,
>
> Whoa! Apparently I've totally misread the documentation. I thought that
> the bgwriter_lru_percent was scanned from the lru end each time; I would
> not expect that it would ever get beyond the oldest 10%.

I believe you're correct and Greg got this wrong. I won't draw any
conclusions about whether the LRU stuff is actually doing you any good
though.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-09-07 01:37:09 Low hanging fruit in lazy-XID-assignment patch?
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2007-09-07 00:31:51 Re: [FEATURE REQUEST] Streaming Onlinebackup (Maybe OFFTOPIC)