| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Cédric Villemain <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: limiting hint bit I/O |
| Date: | 2011-02-05 21:51:37 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=ZzST4ecpDVu=DX1k8waf873X6XAXtJtGc++eb@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Uh, in this C comment:
>
> + * or not we want to take the time to write it. We allow up to 5% of
> + * otherwise-not-dirty pages to be written due to hint bit changes,
>
> 5% of what? 5% of all buffers? 5% of all hint-bit-dirty ones? Can you
> clarify this in the patch?
5% of buffers that are hint-bit-dirty but not otherwise dirty. ISTM
that's exactly what the comment you just quoted says on its face, but
I'm open to some other wording you want to propose.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Radosław Smogura | 2011-02-05 21:59:45 | Varchar and binary protocol |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-05 21:49:59 | Re: limiting hint bit I/O |