On 07/18/2012 12:00 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
The second justification for the split was that it seems easier to get
a low power result from, which I believe was the angle Peter Geoghegan
was working when this popped up originally. The checkpointer has to
run sometimes, but only at a 50% duty cycle as it's tuned out of the
box. It seems nice to be able to approach that in a way that's power
efficient without coupling it to whatever heartbeat the BGW is running
at. I could even see people changing the frequencies for each
independently depending on expected system load. Tune for lower power
when you don't expect many users, that sort of thing.
Yeah - I'm already seeing benefits from that on my laptop, with much
less need to stop Pg when I'm not using it.
--
Craig Ringer
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
