Re: Dirty Buffer Writing [was Proposed LogWriter Scheme] - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Copeland
Subject Re: Dirty Buffer Writing [was Proposed LogWriter Scheme]
Date
Msg-id 1034088918.14350.279.camel@mouse.copelandconsulting.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Dirty Buffer Writing [was Proposed LogWriter Scheme]  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce,

Is there remarks along these lines in the performance turning section of
the docs?  Based on what's coming out of this it would seem that
stressing the importance of leaving a notable (rule of thumb here?)
amount for general OS/kernel needs is pretty important.


Greg


On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 09:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> (This is, BTW, one of the reasons for discouraging people from pushing
> Postgres' shared buffer cache up to a large fraction of total RAM;
> starving the kernel of disk buffers is just plain not a good idea.)


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Dirty Buffer Writing [was Proposed LogWriter Scheme]
Next
From: "Curtis Faith"
Date:
Subject: Re: Analysis of ganged WAL writes