| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Move unused buffers to freelist |
| Date: | 2013-06-28 16:14:15 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZZOVf9MVAMuzmVLSK4MneXpZySSddmQT-XQTHM_Pj-Bg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> This refactoring idea will make that hard to keep around. I think this is
> OK though. Switching to a latch based design should eliminate the
> bgwriter_delay, which means you won't have this worst case of a 200ms stall
> while heavy activity is incoming.
I'm a strong proponent of that 2 minute cycle, so I'd vote for finding
a way to keep it around. But I don't think that (or 200 ms wakeups)
should be the primary thing driving the background writer, either.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-06-28 16:26:52 | Re: changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-06-28 16:10:50 | Re: changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree |