Re: Bgwriter LRU cleaning: we've been going at this all wrong

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jim Nasby
Тема Re: Bgwriter LRU cleaning: we've been going at this all wrong
Дата
Msg-id 3852A1F4-459A-4FAF-8897-400EF02692D1@decibel.org
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Bgwriter LRU cleaning: we've been going at this all wrong  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
Ответы Re: Bgwriter LRU cleaning: we've been going at this all wrong  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Jun 28, 2007, at 7:55 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
>> Do you need to increase shared_buffers in such case?
>
> If you have something going wild creating dirty buffers with a high  
> usage count faster than they are being written to disk, increasing  
> the size of the shared_buffers cache can just make the problem  
> worse--now you have an ever bigger pile of dirty mess to shovel at  
> checkpoint time.  The existing background writers are particularly  
> unsuited to helping out in this situation, I think the new planned  
> implementation will be much better.

Is this still a serious issue with LDC? I share Greg Stark's concern  
that we're going to end up wasting a lot of writes.

Perhaps part of the problem is that we're using a single count to  
track buffer usage; perhaps we need separate counts for reads vs writes?
--
Jim Nasby                                            jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)




В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: David Fetter
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [Pgbuildfarm-members] time to play ...
Следующее
От: Jim Nasby
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCHES] Doc update for pg_start_backup