Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Beena Emerson
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
Date
Msg-id CAOG9ApFj5V7BDWC1K6yDKp8TUZG2-ru7O2xD+7oGk2P28JabEA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.  (Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.  (Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hello,

Thank you for the updated patch.

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Here is the new patch which fixes all of above comments, I changed the
design a bit now as below

What is it?
===========
A pair of bgwrokers one which automatically dumps buffer pool's block
info at a given interval and another which loads those block into
buffer pool when
the server restarts.

Are 2 workers required? This would reduce the number of workers to be launched by other  applications. Also with max_worker_processes = 2 and restart, the system crashes when the 2nd worker is not launched:
2017-02-07 11:36:39.132 IST [20573] LOG:  auto pg_prewarm load : number of buffers actually tried to load 64
2017-02-07 11:36:39.143 IST [18014] LOG:  worker process: auto pg_prewarm load (PID 20573) was terminated by signal 11: Segmentation fault 

I think the document should also mention that an appropriate max_worker_processes should be set else the dump worker will not be launched at all. 


--
Thank you, 

Beena Emerson

Have a Great Day!

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Haribabu Kommi
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] pg_stat_wal_write statistics view
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.