Re: checkpointer continuous flushing

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: checkpointer continuous flushing
Date: 2015-06-22 00:28:56
Message-ID: 558756C8.3020207@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 6/20/15 2:57 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>>> - as version 2: checkpoint buffer sorting based on a 2007 patch by
>>> Takahiro Itagaki but with a smaller and static buffer allocated once.
>>> Also, sorting is done by chunks of 131072 pages in the current
>>> version,
>>> with a guc to change this value.
>>
>> I think it's a really bad idea to do this in chunks.
>
> The small problem I see is that for a very large setting there could be
> several seconds or even minutes of sorting, which may or may not be
> desirable, so having some control on that seems a good idea.

ISTM a more elegant way to handle that would be to start off with a very
small number of buffers and sort larger and larger lists while the OS is
busy writing/syncing.

> Another argument is that Tom said he wanted that:-)

Did he elaborate why? I don't see him on this thread (though I don't
have all of it).

> In practice the value can be set at a high value so that it is nearly
> always sorted in one go. Maybe value "0" could be made special and used
> to trigger this behavior systematically, and be the default.

It'd be nice if it was just self-tuning, with no GUC.

It looks like it'd be much better to get this committed without more
than we have now than to do without it though...
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2015-06-22 00:40:31 Re: Extension support for postgres_fdw
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2015-06-22 00:15:14 Re: Time to get rid of PQnoPasswordSupplied?