On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Greg Smith <g...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
