| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Design proposal: fsync absorb linear slider |
| Date: | 2013-07-23 14:56:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZbbdOa5geGwbGjQK6OinD3Tx-YLsbCWryD2VXDFY9wgQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Recently I've been dismissing a lot of suggested changes to checkpoint fsync
> timing without suggesting an alternative. I have a simple one in mind that
> captures the biggest problem I see: that the number of backend and
> checkpoint writes to a file are not connected at all.
>
> We know that a 1GB relation segment can take a really long time to write
> out. That could include up to 128 changed 8K pages, and we allow all of
> them to get dirty before any are forced to disk with fsync.
By my count, it can include up to 131,072 changed 8K pages.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-07-23 15:25:27 | Re: getting rid of SnapshotNow |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-07-23 14:35:12 | Re: [9.4 CF 1] And then there were 5 |