| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this? |
| Date: | 2010-08-18 19:02:34 |
| Message-ID: | 4C6C2E4A.1010506@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On further reflection, though: since we put in the BufferAccessStrategy
> code, which was in 8.3, the background writer isn't *supposed* to be
> very much involved in writing pages that are dirtied by VACUUM. VACUUM
> runs in a small ring of buffers and is supposed to have to clean its own
> dirt most of the time. So it's wrong to blame this on the bgwriter not
> holding up its end. Rather, what you need to be thinking about is how
> come vacuum seems to be making lots of pages dirty on only one of these
> machines.
This is an anti-wraparound vacuum, so it could have something to do with
the hint bits. Maybe it's setting the freeze bit on every page, and
writing them one page at a time? Still don't understand the call to
pollsys, even so, though.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-18 19:07:59 | Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-18 19:00:10 | Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this? |