On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Let me throw some numbers out [...]
Interesting.
> Ultimately what I want to do here is some sort of smarter write-behind sync
> operation, perhaps with a LRU on relations with pending fsync requests. The
> idea would be to sync relations that haven't been touched in a while in
> advance of the checkpoint even. I think that's similar to the general idea
> Robert is suggesting here, to get some sync calls flowing before all of the
> checkpoint writes have happened. I think that the final sync calls will
> need to get spread out regardless, and since doing that requires a fairly
> small amount of code too that's why we started with that.
Doing some kind of background fsyinc-ing might indeed be sensible, but
I agree that's secondary to trying to spread out the fsyncs during the
checkpoint itself. I guess the question is what we can do there
sensibly without an unreasonable amount of new code.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
