Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Uh, in this C comment:
> >
> > + ? ? ? ?* or not we want to take the time to write it. ?We allow up to 5%
> > of
> > + ? ? ? ?* otherwise-not-dirty pages to be written due to hint bit changes,
> >
> > 5% of what? ?5% of all buffers? ?5% of all hint-bit-dirty ones? ?Can you
> > clarify this in the patch?
>
> 5% of buffers that are hint-bit-dirty but not otherwise dirty. ISTM
> that's exactly what the comment you just quoted says on its face, but
> I'm open to some other wording you want to propose.
How about:
otherwise-not-dirty -> only-hint-bit-dirty
So 95% of your hint bit modificates are discarded if the pages is not
otherwise dirtied? That seems pretty radical.
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
