| From: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer |
| Date: | 2011-09-20 15:01:51 |
| Message-ID: | CABRT9RACQK=aQeW=71j3HaGpobb1Y66jQGBMoKfsWWck0=2bEg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 01:53, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> This patch splits bgwriter into 2 processes: checkpointer and
> bgwriter, seeking to avoid contentious changes. Additional changes are
> expected in this release to build upon these changes for both new
> processes, though this patch stands on its own as both a performance
> vehicle and in some ways a refcatoring to simplify the code.
While you're already splitting up bgwriter, could there be any benefit
to spawning a separate bgwriter process for each tablespace?
If your database has one tablespace on a fast I/O system and another
on a slow one, the slow tablespace would also bog down background
writing for the fast tablespace. But I don't know whether that's
really a problem or not.
Regards,
Marti
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2011-09-20 15:03:00 | Re: Back-branch releases upcoming this week |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-09-20 14:57:51 | Re: Back-branch releases upcoming this week |