| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
| Date: | 2015-09-07 05:19:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LYXdiDasfw8UBtspOgBE_zEFZet4TCXzO9+Ar6=PxzmA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-06 16:05:01 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > >Wouldn't it be just as easy to put this logic into the checkpointing
code?
> >
> > Not sure it would simplify anything, because the checkpointer currently
> > knows about buffers but flushing is about files, which are hidden from
> > view.
>
> It'd not really simplify things, but it'd keep it local.
>
How about using the value of guc (checkpoint_flush_to_disk) and
AmCheckpointerProcess to identify whether to do async flush in FileWrite?
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2015-09-07 05:43:39 | Re: Horizontal scalability/sharding |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-09-07 04:37:21 | Re: pg_rewind tap test unstable |