| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Shiv Sharma <shiv(dot)sharma(dot)1835(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-novice <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checkpoint versus Background Writer |
| Date: | 2013-12-29 00:13:26 |
| Message-ID: | 28364.1388276006@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Shiv Sharma
> <shiv(dot)sharma(dot)1835(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> They seem to do similar things: clear dirty buffers from shared_buffers to
>> disk.
>>
>> So why have 2 processes with seperate semantics (seperate set of config
>> partms) ?
> AFAIU, they serve for completely different purposes.
We used to have a single process trying to serve both purposes, but
it didn't work tremendously well, because the criteria for when to
flush buffers are so different.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sameer Kumar | 2013-12-30 08:23:42 | Query on v9.3 Architecture independent Streaming |
| Previous Message | Sergey Konoplev | 2013-12-27 22:29:44 | Re: Checkpoint versus Background Writer |