Re: Final background writer cleanup for 8.3
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Final background writer cleanup for 8.3 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 2925.1187977073@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Final background writer cleanup for 8.3 ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Any tests which focus just on throughput don't address the problems which
> caused us so much grief.
This is a good point: a steady-state load is either going to be in the
regime where you're not write-bottlenecked, or the one where you are;
and either way the bgwriter isn't going to look like it helps much.
The real use of the bgwriter, perhaps, is to smooth out a varying load
so that you don't get pushed into the write-bottlenecked mode during
spikes. We've already had to rethink the details of how we made that
happen with respect to preventing checkpoints from causing I/O spikes.
Maybe LRU buffer flushes need a rethink too.
Right at the moment I'm still comfortable with what Greg is doing, but
there's an argument here for a more aggressive scaling factor on
number-of-buffers-to-write than he thinks. Still, as long as we have a
GUC variable in there, tuning should be possible.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: