Re: Cost limited statements RFC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Smith
Subject Re: Cost limited statements RFC
Date
Msg-id 519FB6A6.5020306@2ndQuadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Cost limited statements RFC  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Cost limited statements RFC  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 5/24/13 9:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

> But I wonder if we wouldn't be better off coming up with a little more
> user-friendly API.  Instead of exposing a cost delay, a cost limit,
> and various charges, perhaps we should just provide limits measured in
> KB/s, like dirty_rate_limit = <amount of data you can dirty per
> second, in kB> and read_rate_limit = <amount of data you can read into
> shared buffers per second, in kB>.

I already made and lost the argument for doing vacuum in KB/s units, so 
I wasn't planning on putting that in the way of this one.  I still think 
it's possible to switch to real world units and simplify all of those 
parameters.  Maybe I'll get the energy to fight this battle again for 
9.4.  I do have a lot more tuning data from production deployments to 
use as evidence now.

I don't think the UI end changes the bulk of the implementation work 
though.  The time consuming part of this development is inserting all of 
the cost delay hooks and validating they work.  Exactly what parameters 
and logic fires when they are called can easily be refactored later.

-- 
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg@2ndQuadrant.com   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: German Becker
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL segments (names) not in a sequence
Next
From: james
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel Sort