Re: [HACKERS] Bgwriter behavior

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bgwriter behavior
Date: 2005-01-03 20:29:36
Message-ID: 9354.1104784176@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> OK, we have a submitted patch that attempts to improve bgwriter by
> making bgwriter_percent control what percentage of the buffer is
> scanned.

> The patch still needs doc changes and a change to the default value but
> at this point we need a vote on the patch. Is it:

> * too late for 8.0
> * not the right improvement
> * to be applied with doc/default additions

My vote: too late for 8.0. There is no hard evidence that this is a
useful improvement, and no time for such evidence to be obtained.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2005-01-03 20:32:28 possible bug in case comparison on index scan.
Previous Message Tzahi Fadida 2005-01-03 20:20:33 Implementing and Experimenting with a Full Disjunctions Operator.

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2005-01-03 20:52:00 ipcrm or ipcclean hint
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-01-03 20:09:53 Re: [HACKERS] Bgwriter behavior