From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BGWriter latch, power saving |
Date: | 2012-01-17 11:24:37 |
Message-ID: | 4F155A75.1090309@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17.01.2012 12:16, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04.01.2012 17:05, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> On 4 January 2012 07:24, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I think SetBufferCommitInfoNeedsSave() needs the same treatment as
>>> MarkBufferDirty(). And it would probably be good to only set the
>>> latch if
>>> the buffer wasn't dirty already. Setting a latch that's already set
>>> is fast,
>>> but surely it's even faster to not even try.
>>
>> That seems reasonable. Revised patch is attached.
>
> Thanks! It occurs to me that it's still a bad idea to call SetLatch()
> while holding the buffer header spinlock. At least when it's trivial to
> just move the call after releasing the lock. See attached.
>
> Could you do the sleeping/hibernating logic all in BgWriterNap()?
(sorry, forgot to update the above question before sending..)
In the patch I sent, I did rearrange the sleeping logic. I think it's
more readable the way it is now.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-01-17 12:03:50 | review: psql tab completion for GRANT role |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-01-17 10:38:23 | Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby |