On 07/18/2012 12:00 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> The second justification for the split was that it seems easier to get
> a low power result from, which I believe was the angle Peter Geoghegan
> was working when this popped up originally. The checkpointer has to
> run sometimes, but only at a 50% duty cycle as it's tuned out of the
> box. It seems nice to be able to approach that in a way that's power
> efficient without coupling it to whatever heartbeat the BGW is running
> at. I could even see people changing the frequencies for each
> independently depending on expected system load. Tune for lower power
> when you don't expect many users, that sort of thing.
>
Yeah - I'm already seeing benefits from that on my laptop, with much
less need to stop Pg when I'm not using it.
--
Craig Ringer
