Re: Checkpoint versus Background Writer
| От | SUNDAY A. OLUTAYO |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Checkpoint versus Background Writer |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 97997dac-6693-4ced-9ae3-515928cef1ce@mail обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Checkpoint versus Background Writer (Shiv Sharma <shiv.sharma.1835@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Checkpoint versus Background Writer
|
| Список | pgsql-novice |
Checkpoint is different to background writer though works together
BGW continuously write buffer to disk but checkpoint is interval default to 5min at which the process call BGW to flush the entire buffer to disk
BGW continuously write buffer to disk but checkpoint is interval default to 5min at which the process call BGW to flush the entire buffer to disk
Thanks,
Sunday Olutayo
Sunday Olutayo
From: "Shiv Sharma" <shiv.sharma.1835@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-novice@postgresql.org
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 8:46:42 PM
Subject: [NOVICE] Checkpoint versus Background Writer
To: pgsql-novice@postgresql.org
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 8:46:42 PM
Subject: [NOVICE] Checkpoint versus Background Writer
They seem to do similar things: clear dirty buffers from shared_buffers to disk.
So why have 2 processes with seperate semantics (seperate set of config partms) ?
Assuming PG is multi-threaded, can't we simply have multiple threads of the checkpoint achieve the same result as (checkpoint + bg)
Shiv
В списке pgsql-novice по дате отправления: