On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12:00 AM Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Amit kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> > wrote: > > Do you think it will be sufficient to just wake bgwriter when the > buffers in freelist drops > > below low watermark, how about it's current job of flushing dirty > buffers? > > Well, the only point of flushing dirty buffers in the background > writer is to make sure that backends can allocate buffers quickly. If > there are clean buffers already in the freelist, that's not a concern. > So... > > > I mean to ask that if for some scenario where there are sufficient > buffers in freelist, but most > > other buffers are dirty, will delaying flush untill number of buffers > fall below low watermark is okay. > > ...I think this is OK, or at least we should assume it's OK until we > have evidence that it isn't.
Sure, after completing my other review work of Commit Fest, I will devise the solution for the suggestions summarized in previous mail and then start a discussion about same. With Regards, Amit Kapila. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
