Re: Final background writer cleanup for 8.3 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Final background writer cleanup for 8.3
Date
Msg-id 2925.1187977073@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Final background writer cleanup for 8.3  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Any tests which focus just on throughput don't address the problems which
> caused us so much grief.

This is a good point: a steady-state load is either going to be in the
regime where you're not write-bottlenecked, or the one where you are;
and either way the bgwriter isn't going to look like it helps much.

The real use of the bgwriter, perhaps, is to smooth out a varying load
so that you don't get pushed into the write-bottlenecked mode during
spikes.  We've already had to rethink the details of how we made that
happen with respect to preventing checkpoints from causing I/O spikes.
Maybe LRU buffer flushes need a rethink too.

Right at the moment I'm still comfortable with what Greg is doing, but
there's an argument here for a more aggressive scaling factor on
number-of-buffers-to-write than he thinks.  Still, as long as we have a
GUC variable in there, tuning should be possible.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Edoardo
Date:
Subject: Re: simple replication
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Segmentation fault using digest from pg_crypto