From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "'Robert Haas'" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "'Andres Freund'" <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "'Greg Smith'" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "'PostgreSQL-development'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Move unused buffers to freelist |
Date: | 2013-07-02 05:56:13 |
Message-ID: | 01d301ce76e8$dcde27c0$969a7740$@kapila@huawei.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12:00 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > Do you think it will be sufficient to just wake bgwriter when the
> buffers in freelist drops
> > below low watermark, how about it's current job of flushing dirty
> buffers?
>
> Well, the only point of flushing dirty buffers in the background
> writer is to make sure that backends can allocate buffers quickly. If
> there are clean buffers already in the freelist, that's not a concern.
> So...
>
> > I mean to ask that if for some scenario where there are sufficient
> buffers in freelist, but most
> > other buffers are dirty, will delaying flush untill number of buffers
> fall below low watermark is okay.
>
> ...I think this is OK, or at least we should assume it's OK until we
> have evidence that it isn't.
Sure, after completing my other review work of Commit Fest, I will devise
the solution
for the suggestions summarized in previous mail and then start a discussion
about same.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-07-02 06:41:35 | Re: Optimizing pglz compressor |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-07-02 05:45:33 | Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup |