Re: Spread checkpoint sync

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Why would multiple bgwriter processes worry you?
>
> Of course, it wouldn't work to have multiple processes trying to execute
> a checkpoint simultaneously, but what if we separated the tasks so that
> one process is in charge of checkpoints, and another one is in charge of
> the LRU scan?
>

I was commenting more in the context of development resource
allocation. Moving toward that design would be helpful, but it alone
isn't enough to improve the checkpoint sync issues. My concern is that
putting work into that area will be a distraction from making progress
on those. If individual syncs take so long that the background writer
gets lost for a while executing them, and therefore doesn't do LRU
cleanup, you've got a problem that LRU-related improvements probably
aren't enough to solve.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
"PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books