| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, digoal zhou <digoal(dot)zhou(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Let PostgreSQL's On Schedule checkpoint write buffer smooth spread cycle by tuning IsCheckpointOnSchedule? |
| Date: | 2015-07-05 15:05:28 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa8cSaw0URma0fpqrFEAqWoUimFU2zhDwXbmVLs8+OmkQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
> Do you mean I have to proove that there is an actual problem induced from
> this patch?
No, I'm not saying anyone *has* to do anything. What I'm saying is
that I'm not convinced by your analysis. I don't think we have enough
evidence at this point to conclude that a GUC is necessary, and I hope
it isn't, because I can't imagine what advice we would be able to give
people about how to set it, other than "try all the value and see what
works best", which isn't going to be satisfying.
More broadly, I don't really know how to test this patch and show when
it helps and when it hurts. And I think we need that, rather than
just a theoretical analysis, to tune the behavior. Heikki, can you
describe what you think a good test setup would be? Like, what
workload should we run, and what measurements should we gather to see
what the patch is doing that is good or bad?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-07-05 15:06:43 | Re: Exposing PG_VERSION_NUM in pg_config |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-07-05 14:51:48 | Re: Exposing PG_VERSION_NUM in pg_config |