Re: The efficiency of the WAL log writer

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Steven Elliott <selliott4(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: The efficiency of the WAL log writer
Date: 2011-02-17 15:26:22
Message-ID: 7306.1297956382@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Steven Elliott <selliott4(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com> writes:
> I don't think the current behavior is particularly harmful, but maybe
> PostgreSQL could be made to idle more quietly.

Yeah, this is something that's on my personal to-do list. It's not
really an efficiency/performance issue, but in a machine that's
otherwise idle this behavior is bad for overall CPU power consumption.

The plan is to try to use the "latch" primitives that were recently
added to the code to eliminate sleep-and-check-for-something-to-do
loops. Didn't get done for 9.1 unfortunately.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2011-02-17 15:54:31 Re: disable triggers using psql
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-02-17 14:52:35 Re: pl/pgSQL variable substitution