Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4E784991.90807@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 20.09.2011 10:48, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Fujii Masao<masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Simon Riggs<simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> This patch splits bgwriter into 2 processes: checkpointer and >>> bgwriter, seeking to avoid contentious changes. Additional changes are >>> expected in this release to build upon these changes for both new >>> processes, though this patch stands on its own as both a performance >>> vehicle and in some ways a refcatoring to simplify the code. >> >> I like this idea to simplify the code. How much performance gain can we >> expect by this patch? > > On heavily I/O bound systems, this is likely to make a noticeable > difference, since bgwriter reduces I/O in user processes. Hmm. If the system is I/O bound, it doesn't matter which process performs the I/O. It's still the same amount of I/O in total, and in an I/O bound system, that's what determines the overall throughput. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: