Re: Checkpoints and buffers that are hint-bit-dirty - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Checkpoints and buffers that are hint-bit-dirty
Date
Msg-id 1948.1183821808@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Checkpoints and buffers that are hint-bit-dirty  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Checkpoints and buffers that are hint-bit-dirty  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> When we checkpoint we write out all dirty buffers. But ISTM we don't really
> need to write out buffers which are dirty but which have an LSN older than the
> previous checkpoint. Those represent buffers which were dirtied by a
> non-wal-logged modification, ie, hint bit setting. The other non-wal-logged
> operations will sync the buffer themselves when they're done.

In the current dispensation we don't really care how long a checkpoint
takes, so I don't see the advantage to be gained.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Fixed from TODO?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: usleep feature for pgbench