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