From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Fabrice Franquenk <Fabrice(dot)Franquenk(at)bull(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Do checkpoints flush all data from shared buffers ? |
Date: | 2006-07-13 22:36:31 |
Message-ID: | 22060.1152830191@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
Fabrice Franquenk <Fabrice(dot)Franquenk(at)bull(dot)net> writes:
> Because i was trying to lower I/Os of the disks, i got the checkpoint
> timeout lowered to 150 seconds so i get twice the number the checkpoint.
> I was hoping it would reduce the number of I/Os on the disks because
> there would be less data to write in datafiles...
No, that's going to *increase* the amount of I/O: pages will be forced
to disk more often, and what's worse you'll be increasing the volume of
WAL data because of extra post-checkpoint page images written to WAL.
As a rule of thumb, you want checkpoints to occur as far apart as you
can stand, remembering that a longer distance back to the last
checkpoint means longer recovery time after a crash.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Devrim GUNDUZ | 2006-07-13 23:09:31 | Re: The name of the game (was Re: postgre linkage with |
Previous Message | Richard Broersma Jr | 2006-07-13 22:03:07 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] The name of the game |