Re: [PATCHES] Load distributed checkpoint patch
От | Takayuki Tsunakawa |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCHES] Load distributed checkpoint patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 03be01c7242f$2b4ce130$19527c0a@OPERAO обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCHES] Load distributed checkpoint patch (ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCHES] Load distributed checkpoint patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
From: "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> Do you use the same delay autovacuum uses? > > What do you mean 'the same delay'? Autovacuum does VACUUM, not CHECKPOINT. > If you think cost-based-delay, I think we cannot use it here. It's hard to > estimate how much checkpoints delay by cost-based sleeping, but we should > finish asynchronous checkpoints by the start of next checkpoint. So I gave > priority to punctuality over load smoothing. I consider that smoothing the load (more meaningfully, response time) has higher priority over checkpoint punctuality in a practical sense, because the users of a system benefit from good steady response and give good reputation to the system. If the checkpoint processing is not punctual, crash recovery would take longer time. But which would you give higher priority, the unlikely event (=crash of the system) or likely event (=peek hours of the system)? I believe the latter should be regarded. The system can write dirty buffers after the peek hours pass. User experience should be taken much case of.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: