On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> This refactoring idea will make that hard to keep around. I think this is
> OK though. Switching to a latch based design should eliminate the
> bgwriter_delay, which means you won't have this worst case of a 200ms stall
> while heavy activity is incoming.
I'm a strong proponent of that 2 minute cycle, so I'd vote for finding
a way to keep it around. But I don't think that (or 200 ms wakeups)
should be the primary thing driving the background writer, either.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company