Re: [HACKERS] Bgwriter behavior - Mailing list pgsql-patches
From | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [HACKERS] Bgwriter behavior |
Date | |
Msg-id | 1104614041.3978.1269.camel@localhost.localdomain Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [HACKERS] Bgwriter behavior (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Responses |
Re: [HACKERS] Bgwriter behavior
Re: [HACKERS] Bgwriter behavior Re: [HACKERS] Bgwriter behavior |
List | pgsql-patches |
On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 17:47, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 17:01, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > > Well, I think we're saying: its not in 8.0 now, and we take our time to > > > consider patches for 8.1 and accept the situation that the parameter > > > names/meaning will change in next release. > > > > I have no problem doing something for 8.0 if we can find something that > > meets all the items I mentioned. > > > > One idea would be to just remove bgwriter_percent. Beta/RC users would > > still have it in their postgresql.conf, but it is commented out so it > > should be OK. If they uncomment it their server would not start but we > > could just tell testers to remove it. I see that as better than having > > conflicting parameters. > > Can't say I like that at first thought. I'll think some more though... > > > Another idea is to have bgwriter_percent be the percent of the buffer it > > will scan. > > Hmmm....well that was my original suggestion (bg2.patch on 12 Dec) > (...though with a bug, as Neil pointed out) > > > We could default that to 50% or 100%, but we then need to > > make sure all beta/RC users update their postgresql.conf with the new > > default because the commented-out default will not be correct. > > ...we just differ/ed on what the default should be... > > > At this point I see these as our only two viable options, aside from > > doing nothing. > > > I realize our current behavior requires a full scan of the buffer cache, > > but how often is the bgwriter_maxpages limit met? If it is not a full > > scan is done anyway, right? > > Well, if you heavy a very heavy read workload then that would be a > problem. I was more worried about concurrency in a heavy write > situation, but I can see your point, and agree. > > (Idea #1 still suffers from this, so we should rule it out...) > > > It seems the only way to really add > > functionality is to change bgwriter_precent to control how much of the > > buffer is scanned. > > OK. I think you've persuaded me on idea #2, if I understand you right: > > bgwriter_percent = 50 (default) > bgwriter_maxpages = 100 (default) > > percent is the number of shared_buffers we scan, limited by maxpages. > > (I'll code it up in a couple of hours when the kids are in bed) Here's the basic patch - no changes to current default values or docs. Not sure if this is still interesting or not... -- Best Regards, Simon Riggs
pgsql-patches by date: