On 29 Srpen 2011, 7:47, Noah Misch wrote: > On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 03:57:16PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> On 27 Srpen 2011, 6:01, Noah Misch wrote: >> > Could you remove this hazard by adding a step "2a. psql -c >> CHECKPOINT"? >> >> I already do that, but it really does not solve the issue. It just >> aligns >> the first expected 'timed' checkpoint, it does not solve the problem >> with >> in-progress checkpoints unless the runs behave exactly the same (and >> that's the boring case). > > To clarify, run that command _after_ the 10-minute pgbench run. It > blocks until completion of both the in-progress checkpoint, if any, > and the requested checkpoint.
I don't think this is going to help when there is a checkpoint in progress, as the new CHECKPOINT will wait till the already running one completes. It might force it to finish faster, but I still can't say how much data was written when the pgbench was running. Tomas -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
