| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Time to up bgwriter_lru_maxpages? |
| Date: | 2017-02-02 01:30:30 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYv0ud_1uT_kWd_S35XRPwU5SJFVQ3sJArYK5EH83XD3Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2016-11-28 11:40:53 -0800, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> With current limits, the most bgwriter can do (with 8k pages) is 1000 pages
>> * 100 times/sec = 780MB/s. It's not hard to exceed that with modern
>> hardware. Should we increase the limit on bgwriter_lru_maxpages?
>
> FWIW, I think working on replacing bgwriter (e.g. by working on the
> patch I send with a POC replacement) wholesale is a better approach than
> spending time increasing limits.
I'm happy to see it replaced, but increasing the limits is about three
orders of magnitude less work than replacing it, so let's not block
this on the theory that the other thing would be better.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-02-02 01:35:37 | Re: Time to up bgwriter_lru_maxpages? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-02-02 00:28:35 | Re: Time to up bgwriter_lru_maxpages? |