Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring
От | Greg Smith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.GSO.4.64.0703090812410.15206@westnet.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring (ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>) |
Ответы |
Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: > "Pinned" means bufHdr->refcount > 0 and you don't distinguish pinned or > recently-used (bufHdr->usage_count > 0) buffers in your patch. Thank you, I will revise the terminology used accordingly. I was using "pinned" as a shortcut for "will be ignored by skip_pinned" which was sloppy of me. As I said, I was trying to show how the buffer cache looks from the perspective of the background writer, and therefore lumping them together because that's how SyncOneBuffer views them. A buffer cache full of either type will be largely ignored by the LRU writer, and that's what I've been finding when running insert/update heavy workloads like pgbench. If I might suggest a terminology change to avoid this confusion in the future, I'd like to rename the SyncOneBuffer "skip_pinned" parameter to something like "skip_active", which is closer to the real behavior. I know Oracle refers to these as "hot" and "cold" LRU entries. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: