Re: Proposal: backend "niceness" / session_priority

From: Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, José Luis Tallón <jltallon(at)adv-solutions(dot)net>
Cc: 'Pg Hackers' <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: backend "niceness" / session_priority
Date: 2015-07-30 22:33:55
Message-ID: 55BAA653.5050301@proxel.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 07/31/2015 12:18 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> This has been proposed before, and rejected before, and I'm not seeing
>> anything particularly new here. Without a credible mechanism for
>> throttling I/O, "nice" alone does not seem very promising.
>
> Some OSes respect nice when it comes to IO scheduling, so it might still
> be useful.

Wouldn't the bgwriter remove a lot of the usefulness?

Andreas

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2015-07-30 23:01:58 Re: Using quicksort and a merge step to significantly improve on tuplesort's single run "external sort"
Previous Message Andreas Karlsson 2015-07-30 22:28:30 Re: [PATCH] Reload SSL certificates on SIGHUP