On 2016-01-09 19:05:54 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > Right that won't be acceptable, however I think with your latest > proposal [1]
Sure, that'd address that problem. > [...] think that idea will help to mitigate the problem of backend and > bgwriter writes as well. In that, can't we do it with the help of > existing infrastructure of *pendingOpsTable* and > *CheckpointerShmem->requests[]*, as already the flush requests are > remembered in those structures, we can use those to apply your idea to > issue flush requests. Hm, that might be possible. But that might have some bigger implications - we currently can issue thousands of flush requests a second, without much chance of merging. I'm not sure it's a good idea to overlay that into the lower frequency pendingOpsTable. Backends having to issue fsyncs because the pending fsync queue is full is darn expensive. In contrast to that a 'flush hint' request getting lost doesn't cost that much. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
