| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
| Date: | 2016-01-21 08:11:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20160121081140.GN26711@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-01-21 11:33:15 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > I don't think it's strongly related - the contention here is on read
> > access to the clog, not on write access.
>
> Aren't reads on clog contended with parallel writes to clog?
Sure. But you're not going to beat "no access to the clog" due to hint
bits, by making parallel writes a bit better citizens.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-01-21 08:29:38 | Re: Releasing in September |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-01-21 07:14:04 | Re: Batch update of indexes |