| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | sthomas(at)peak6(dot)com, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Blocking excessively in FOR UPDATE |
| Date: | 2011-11-04 18:54:41 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoasqd=pGy9FrE_PQH50rZi4d8nyZ1hMF3TKWpuBjO1sNg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't think 1 second can be such a big difference for the bgwriter,
> but I might be wrong.
Well, the default value is 200 ms. And I've never before heard of
anyone tuning it up, except maybe to save on power consumption on a
system with very low utilization. Nearly always you want to reduce
it.
> The wal_writer makes me doubt, though. If logged activity was higher
> than 8MB/s, then that setting would block it all.
> I guess I really should lower it.
Here again, you've set it to ten times the default value. That
doesn't seem like a good idea. I would start with the default and
tune down.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shaun Thomas | 2011-11-04 19:00:50 | Re: Blocking excessively in FOR UPDATE |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-04 18:49:56 | Re: Strange query plan |