Re: Checkpoint versus Background Writer - Mailing list pgsql-novice

From SUNDAY A. OLUTAYO
Subject Re: Checkpoint versus Background Writer
Date
Msg-id 6c6f24e3-04c3-4598-9d9c-f613f888175d@mail
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Checkpoint versus Background Writer  (Shiv Sharma <shiv.sharma.1835@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-novice
I do not understand your statement

Thanks,

Sunday Olutayo


From: "Shiv Sharma" <shiv.sharma.1835@gmail.com>
To: "SUNDAY A. OLUTAYO" <olutayo@sadeeb.com>
Cc: pgsql-novice@postgresql.org
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 9:41:58 PM
Subject: Re: [NOVICE] Checkpoint versus Background Writer

>Checkpoint is different to background writer though works together
>BGW continuously write buffer to disk but checkpoint is interval default to 5min at which the process call >BGW to flush the entire buffer to disk

But with 8.3 and checkpoint_completion_target, is not the checkpoint spread out too? (or can be spread out).



On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:58 AM, SUNDAY A. OLUTAYO <olutayo@sadeeb.com> wrote:
Checkpoint is different to background writer though works together
BGW continuously write buffer to disk but checkpoint is interval default to 5min at which the process call BGW to flush the entire buffer to disk

Thanks,

Sunday Olutayo



From: "Shiv Sharma" <shiv.sharma.1835@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-novice@postgresql.org
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 8:46:42 PM
Subject: [NOVICE] Checkpoint versus Background Writer


They seem to do similar things: clear dirty buffers from shared_buffers to disk.

So why have 2 processes with seperate semantics (seperate set of config partms) ?

Assuming PG is multi-threaded, can't we simply have multiple threads of the checkpoint achieve the same result as (checkpoint + bg)


Shiv



pgsql-novice by date:

Previous
From: Shiv Sharma
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpoint versus Background Writer
Next
From: Sergey Konoplev
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpoint versus Background Writer