| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Venkata Balaji N <nag1010(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Date: | 2015-06-26 13:47:25 |
| Message-ID: | 558D57ED.70401@iki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/26/2015 03:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Actually, I've seen a number of presentations indicating
> that the pacing of checkpoints is already too aggressive near the
> beginning, because as soon as we initiate the checkpoint we have a
> storm of full page writes. I'm sure we can come up with arbitrarily
> complicated systems to compensate for this, but something simple might
> be to calculate progress done+adjust/total+adjust rather than
> done/total. If you let adjust=total/9, for example, then you
> essentially start the progress meter at 10% instead of 0%. Even
> something that simple might be an improvement.
Yeah, but that's an unrelated issue. This was most recently discussed at
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKHd5Ce-bnD=gEEdtXiT2_AY7shquTKd0yHXXk5F4zVEKRPX-w@mail.gmail.com.
I posted a simple patch there - review and testing is welcome ;-).
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-06-26 13:49:24 | Re: Nitpicking: unnecessary NULL-pointer check in pg_upgrade's controldata.c |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-06-26 13:44:14 | Re: Nitpicking: unnecessary NULL-pointer check in pg_upgrade's controldata.c |