Re: Time to up bgwriter_lru_maxpages?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Time to up bgwriter_lru_maxpages?
Date: 2017-02-04 01:34:46
Message-ID: 20170204013446.6jkapurcf6f3tnlm@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-02-03 19:26:55 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/3/17 6:20 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > - The ringbuffers in shared buffers can be problematic. One possible way of
> > > solving that is to get rid of ringbuffers entirely and rely on different
> > > initial values for usage_count instead, but that's not desirable if it just
> > > means more clock sweep work for backends.
> > I'm not quite sure which ringbuffer you're referring to here? If to the
> > new one, why is it problematic?
>
> No, I mean the non-default BufferAccessStrategy's.

That's not a ringbuffer that's a buffer ring ;)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2017-02-04 01:44:46 Re: Parallel Index Scans
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-02-04 01:33:42 Re: PinBuffer() no longer makes use of strategy