Re: Final background writer cleanup for 8.3
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Final background writer cleanup for 8.3 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2925.1187977073@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Final background writer cleanup for 8.3 ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes: > Any tests which focus just on throughput don't address the problems which > caused us so much grief. This is a good point: a steady-state load is either going to be in the regime where you're not write-bottlenecked, or the one where you are; and either way the bgwriter isn't going to look like it helps much. The real use of the bgwriter, perhaps, is to smooth out a varying load so that you don't get pushed into the write-bottlenecked mode during spikes. We've already had to rethink the details of how we made that happen with respect to preventing checkpoints from causing I/O spikes. Maybe LRU buffer flushes need a rethink too. Right at the moment I'm still comfortable with what Greg is doing, but there's an argument here for a more aggressive scaling factor on number-of-buffers-to-write than he thinks. Still, as long as we have a GUC variable in there, tuning should be possible. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: