On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> At any rate, I'm somewhat less convinced that the split was a good >> idea than I was when we did it, mostly because we haven't really gone >> anywhere with it subsequently. > > BTW, while we are on the subject: hasn't this split completely broken > the statistics about backend-initiated writes?
Yes, it seems to have done just that. The comment for ForwardFsyncRequest is a few bricks short of a load too: * Whenever a backend is compelled to write directly to a relation * (which should be seldom, if the checkpointer is getting its job done), * the backend calls this routine to pass over knowledge that the relation * is dirty and must be fsync'd before next checkpoint. We also use this * opportunity to count such writes for statistical purposes. Line 2 seems to have been mechanically changed from "background writer" to "checkpointer", but of course it should still say "background writer" in this case. -- 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
