Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 22795.1182874721@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3 (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3
Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3 |
Список | pgsql-patches |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> This argument supposes that the bgwriter will do nothing while the COPY >> is proceeding. > It will clean buffers ahead of the COPY, but it won't write the buffers > COPY leaves behind since they have usage_count=1. Yeah, and they don't *need* to be written until the clock sweep has passed over them once. I'm not impressed with the idea of writing buffers because we might need them someday; that just costs extra I/O due to re-dirtying in too many scenarios. (Note that COPY per se will not trigger this behavior anyway, since it will act in a limited number of buffers because of the recent buffer access strategy patch.) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: