On 01/20/2012 10:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Greg Smith<g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
vacuum_cost_page_hit = 0.1
vacuum_cost_page_miss = 1.0
vacuum_cost_page_dirty = 2.0
Now add in the new setting, which is explicitly said to be the read value:
vacuum_cost_read_limit = 8000 # maximum page miss read rate in
kilobytes/second
That may be a little better, but I still don't think it's worth
breaking backward compatibility for. I mean, suppose I don't care
about read rate, but I want to limit my dirty data rate to 1MB/s.
What parameters should I set?
vacuum_cost_page_dirty = 8.0
The resulting maximum rates will then be:
hit = 80MB/s
miss = 8MB/s
dirty = 1MB/s
The question you should ask yourself next is "how do I limit my dirty data rate to
1MB/s in 9.1?" Working that out by hand is a good exercise, to show just how much
less complicated this proposal is over the current state of things. Show me how it's
possible to do that in way we can expect new DBAs to follow, then the idea of keeping
strong backwards compatibility here would have some weight. I see sticking too closely
to the current scheme as being more bug-level compatibility; it's fundamentally broken,
by being too difficult to use, to most people in its current form.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US g...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
