Re: Checkpoint question

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Checkpoint question
Date: 2006-01-12 09:15:37
Message-ID: 3094.1137057337@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> It'd be possible to do something like this: after establishing
>>> RedoRecPtr, make one quick pass through the buffers and make a list of
>>> what needs to be dumped at that instant. Then go back and do the actual
>>> I/O for only those buffers.

> To compile the list, you'd need to stop all buffer write activity while
> you compile it, which sounds a high price for the benefit.

Not really --- I was only thinking of narrowing the window for "extra"
writes to get in, not removing the window entirely. Don't need any sort
of global lock for that.

But I agree with your analysis that the extra cycles won't save much in
practice. The objection I see is that two lock cycles on each targeted
buffer are a nontrivial expense in SMP machines.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Qingqing Zhou 2006-01-12 09:50:30 Re: Checkpoint question
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2006-01-12 09:08:10 Re: Checkpoint question