Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring

From: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring
Date: 2007-03-09 13:57:48
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.64.0703090812410.15206@westnet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:

> "Pinned" means bufHdr->refcount > 0 and you don't distinguish pinned or
> recently-used (bufHdr->usage_count > 0) buffers in your patch.

Thank you, I will revise the terminology used accordingly. I was using
"pinned" as a shortcut for "will be ignored by skip_pinned" which was
sloppy of me. As I said, I was trying to show how the buffer cache looks
from the perspective of the background writer, and therefore lumping them
together because that's how SyncOneBuffer views them. A buffer cache full
of either type will be largely ignored by the LRU writer, and that's what
I've been finding when running insert/update heavy workloads like pgbench.

If I might suggest a terminology change to avoid this confusion in the
future, I'd like to rename the SyncOneBuffer "skip_pinned" parameter to
something like "skip_active", which is closer to the real behavior. I
know Oracle refers to these as "hot" and "cold" LRU entries.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2007-03-09 14:49:24 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove unsafe calling of WSAStartup and WSA Cleanup from DllMain.
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2007-03-09 13:55:48 Interaction of PITR backups and Bulk operations avoiding WAL