| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris Wilson <chris+google(at)qwirx(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Docs <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: What does "[backends] should seldom or never need to wait for a write to occur" mean? |
| Date: | 2020-11-11 23:24:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20201111232417.GH25840@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:29:09AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> I still believe that my original proposed change, to "This reduces the chances
> that a backend needing an empty buffer must [itself] write a dirty one back to
> disk before evicting it" (with one extra word added), resolves the ambiguity
> and also more clearly and directly focuses it on what the bgwriter does and
> why, making it better documentation. It might be incorrect if my understanding
> is incorrect - is it?
You make some very good points. Here is an updated patch.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| bgwriter.diff | text/x-diff | 1.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-11-12 08:05:10 | doc: index items for pg_stat_progress_xxx views |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-11-11 19:32:13 | Re: Addition to content |