From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Reduced power consumption in WAL Writer process |
Date: | 2011-07-15 16:08:40 |
Message-ID: | 1310745401-sup-105@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Simon Riggs's message of vie jul 15 09:55:40 -0400 2011:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > If the primary goal here is to reduce power consumption, another option
> > would be to keep the regular wake-ups most of the time but have some
> > mechanism for putting the process to sleep until wakened when no activity
> > happens for a certain period of time - say, 10 cycles. I'm not at all sure
> > that's better, but it would be less of a change to the existing behavior.
>
> Now we have them, latches seem the best approach because they (mostly)
> avoid heuristics.
Yeah, there's no reason for "less of a change" to be a criterion to
determine the best way forward. The new tech is clearly a better
solution overall, so lets just get rid of the cruft.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-07-15 16:16:50 | Re: Is there a committer in the house? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-07-15 14:33:17 | Re: ON COMMIT action not catalogued? |