On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> 1) The progress passed to CheckpointWriteDelay() will often be wrong -
>it's calculated as num_written / num_to_write, but num_written is only
>incremented if the buffer hasn't since independently been written
>
On 2015-10-22 09:52:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > 1) The progress passed to CheckpointWriteDelay() will often be wrong -
> >it's calculated as num_written / num_to_write, but num_written is only
> >incremented
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>
> Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> > >4) It's a bit dubious to only pgstat_send_bgwriter() when on schedule.
> >
> > No opinion!
>
> My guess here, without looking, is that this was based on the idea of
> "oops, we're late
Hi,
working on the checkpoint sorting/flushing patch I noticed a number of
preexisting issues:
1) The progress passed to CheckpointWriteDelay() will often be wrong -
it's calculated as num_written / num_to_write, but num_written is only
incremented if the buffer hasn't since independently
preexisting issues:
1) The progress passed to CheckpointWriteDelay() will often be wrong -
it's calculated as num_written / num_to_write, but num_written is only
incremented if the buffer hasn't since independently been written
out. That's bad because it mean's we'll think we're further
Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >4) It's a bit dubious to only pgstat_send_bgwriter() when on schedule.
>
> No opinion!
My guess here, without looking, is that this was based on the idea of
"oops, we're late here for the checkpoint, let's do as less work as
possible to avoid getting even later", and