Re: Load distributed checkpoint

>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2006 at 10:43 AM, in message
<6439.1165596207@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: 
> 
> I wonder whether it would be feasible to teach the bgwriter to get
more
> aggressive as the time for the next checkpoint approaches?  Writes
> issued early in the interval have a much higher probability of being
> wasted (because the page gets re- dirtied later).
But wouldn't the ones written earlier stand a much better chance of
being scheduled for a physical write before the fsync?  They aren't ALL
re-dirtied.  In our environment, we seem to be getting a lot written
before the fsync with our current settings.
> But maybe that just
> reduces to what Takahiro- san already suggested, namely that
> checkpoint- time writes should be done with the same kind of
scheduling
> the bgwriter uses outside checkpoints.  We still have the problem
that
> the real I/O storm is triggered by fsync() not write(), and we don't
> have a way to spread out the consequences of fsync().
We don't have a way to force writes before the fsync, but early writes
to the file system encourages it.  After reading this thread, I'm
tempted to nudge our settings a little higher -- especially the
percentages.  How much overhead is there in checking whether buffer
pages are dirty?
-Kevin