On 3 July 2015 at 06:38, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: > > Hello Simon, > > We could do better, but that is not a reason not to commit this, as is. >> Commit, please. >> > > My 0,02€: Please do not commit without further testing... > > I've submitted a patch to improve checkpoint write scheduling, including > X00 hours of performance test on various cases. This patch changes > significantly the load distribution over the whole checkpoint, and AFAICS > has been tested on rather small cases. > > I'm not sure that the power 1.5 is the right one for all cases. For a big > checkpoint over 30 minutes, it may have, or not, very large and possibly > unwanted effects. Maybe the 1.5 factor should really be a guc. Well, what I > really think is that it needs performance measures. >
power 1,5 is almost certainly not right for all cases, but it is simple and better. And easy to remove if something even better arrives. I don't see the two patches being in conflict. > In conclusion, and very egoistically, I would prefer if this patch could > wait for the checkpoint scheduling patch to be considered, as it would > basically invalidate the X00 hours of performance tests I ran:-) I recommend making peace with yourself that probably 50% of development time is wasted. But we try to keep the best half. Thank you for your time spent contributing. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
