Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoa=+TfNpFHss8-6h6MO2HPxLLEg9fJY0hgD4mKozRKFNg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Any reason or objection to committing this patch?

Not on my end, though I haven't reviewed it in detail.  One minor note
- I was mildly surprised to see that you moved this to the
checkpointer rather than leaving it in the bgwriter:

+    /* Do this once before starting the loop, then just at SIGHUP time. */
+    SyncRepUpdateSyncStandbysDefined();

My preference would probably have been to leave that in the background
writer, on the theory that the checkpointer's work is likely to be
more bursty and therefore it might be less responsive.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: new compiler warnings
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance