On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Well, yes they are. They cause unnecessary process wakeups and thereby
>> consume cycles even when the database is idle. See for example a
>> longstanding complaint here:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252129
>>
>> If we're going to go to the trouble of having a mechanism like this,
>> I'd like it to fix that problem so I can close out that bug.
>
> The way the background writer wakes up periodically to absorb fsync requests
> is already way too infrequent on a busy system.
Maybe instead of a fixed-duration sleep we could wake it up when it
needs to do something.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company