Re: Load distributed checkpoint

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
Cc: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Load distributed checkpoint
Date: 2007-01-03 11:18:42
Message-ID: E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57901A355A0@m0143.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches


> > I believe there's something similar for OS X as well. The question
is:
> > would it be better to do that, or to just delay calling fsync until
the
> > OS has had a chance to write things out.
>
> A delay is not going to help unless you can suppress additional writes
> to the file, which I don't think you can unless there's very little
> going on in the database --- dirty buffers have to get written to make
> room for other pages, checkpoint in progress or no.

But checkpoint first writes all dirty pages, so we have more than
average
pages that can be replaced without a write. Thus we have a window where
we can wait until dirty pages have to be replaced again. Since the
bgwriter
is sleeping until fsync, only pages that have to be replaced will be
written.
Question is, how do we time that window.

Andreas

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD 2007-01-03 11:56:11 Re: effective_cache_size vs units
Previous Message Mark Cave-Ayland 2007-01-03 09:15:41 Re: WITH support

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2007-01-03 15:35:44 Re: [HACKERS] Patch to log usage of temporary files
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2007-01-03 08:52:29 Re: xlog directory at initdb time