| From: | "SUNDAY A(dot) OLUTAYO" <olutayo(at)sadeeb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shiv Sharma <shiv(dot)sharma(dot)1835(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Checkpoint versus Background Writer |
| Date: | 2013-12-27 15:58:00 |
| Message-ID: | 97997dac-6693-4ced-9ae3-515928cef1ce@mail |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
Checkpoint is different to background writer though works together
BGW continuously write buffer to disk but checkpoint is interval default to 5min at which the process call BGW to flush the entire buffer to disk
Thanks,
Sunday Olutayo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shiv Sharma" <shiv(dot)sharma(dot)1835(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 8:46:42 PM
Subject: [NOVICE] Checkpoint versus Background Writer
They seem to do similar things: clear dirty buffers from shared_buffers to disk.
So why have 2 processes with seperate semantics (seperate set of config partms) ?
Assuming PG is multi-threaded, can't we simply have multiple threads of the checkpoint achieve the same result as (checkpoint + bg)
Shiv
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | SUNDAY A. OLUTAYO | 2013-12-27 16:47:44 | Re: Checkpoint versus Background Writer |
| Previous Message | Matthias Leopold | 2013-12-23 13:23:20 | Re: plpgsql merge func question |