Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
| От | Beena Emerson |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm. |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAOG9ApFj5V7BDWC1K6yDKp8TUZG2-ru7O2xD+7oGk2P28JabEA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm. (Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm. |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
--
Thank you for the updated patch.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Here is the new patch which fixes all of above comments, I changed the
design a bit now as below
What is it?
===========
A pair of bgwrokers one which automatically dumps buffer pool's block
info at a given interval and another which loads those block into
buffer pool when
the server restarts.
Are 2 workers required? This would reduce the number of workers to be launched by other applications. Also with max_worker_processes = 2 and restart, the system crashes when the 2nd worker is not launched:
2017-02-07 11:36:39.132 IST [20573] LOG: auto pg_prewarm load : number of buffers actually tried to load 64
2017-02-07 11:36:39.143 IST [18014] LOG: worker process: auto pg_prewarm load (PID 20573) was terminated by signal 11: Segmentation fault
I think the document should also mention that an appropriate max_worker_processes should be set else the dump worker will not be launched at all.
Thank you,
Beena Emerson
Have a Great Day!
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: