Re: Checkpoint question

From: Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Checkpoint question
Date: 2006-01-12 09:50:30
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.58.0601120421290.10946@eon.cs
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> The only buffers this will miss are ones that were clean throughout the
> whole of the last checkpoint cycle, yet have been dirtied between the
> start of the checkpoint pass and when the pass reaches it.

I agree on the analysis but I am not sure current interval of doing a
checkpoint. So it depends. If the checkpoint on an io-intensive machine
the interval I guess would not be small. Also, in this environment, one
more round of lock cycle should be relatively cheap. But we currently
don't have any numbers on hand ...

Regards,
Qingqing

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alon Goldshuv 2006-01-12 15:10:06 Re: Libpq COPY optimization
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-01-12 09:15:37 Re: Checkpoint question