| From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WAL/PITR additional items |
| Date: | 2005-04-20 23:54:47 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0504210951050.27493@linuxworld.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> What?
>
> > The discussion Simon is refering to came up during the 8.0 beta IIRC. The
> > problem was that we were not allocating xlogs quickly enough under
> > heavy workloads and there was some discussion about the bgwriter taking
> > over this task since it could assess the need for new xlogs more often.
>
> Huh? The bgwriter already has this task, since it runs checkpoints.
>
> It's possible that we ought to allow more "slop" in the number of
> prealloc'd xlog segments --- I think that the current code is probably
> too enthusiastic about deleting "extra" segments after a spike in
> activity subsides. But I don't see the point of moving the
> responsibility somewhere else.
I guess I was recalling this part of the earlier thread:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-07/msg01088.php
Thanks,
Gavin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paul Tillotson | 2005-04-21 00:10:23 | Re: Proposal for background vacuum full/cluster |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-20 23:41:28 | Re: WAL/PITR additional items |