Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, 2004-12-27 at 22:21, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Should we consider at least adjusting the meaning of bgwriter_percent? > > Yes. As things stand, this is the only change that seems safe. > > Here's a very short patch that implements this change within BufferSync > in bufmgr.c > > - No algorithm changes > - No error message changes > - Only change is the call to StrategyDirtyBufferList is made using the > maximum number of buffers that will be cleaned, rather than uselessly > trawling through all of shared_buffers > > This changes the meaning of bgwriter_percent from "percent of dirty > buffers" to "percent of shared_buffers". The default settings of 1% of > 1000 buffers gives up to 10 dirty block writes every 250ms > > Benefit: allows performance tuning by increases options for setting > bgwriter_delay which would otherwise have an ineffectually high minimum > setting > > Risk: low > > 1-line doc patch to follow, if this is approved.
I am not objecting to the patch, but what value is there in having both bgwriter_percent and bgwriter_maxpages? Seems both are redundant and that one would be enough. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
