Re: [HACKERS] Dirty pages in freelist cause WAL stuck

2007-02-05 Thread Jim Nasby
I think there's improvement to be made in how we track buffer usage in general. Seqscans still hold the same weight as any other operation, the freelist is of questionable value, and there's a lot of work done to find a free buffer out of the pool, for example. On Feb 2, 2007, at 8:08 PM, B

Re: [HACKERS] Dirty pages in freelist cause WAL stuck

2007-02-02 Thread Bruce Momjian
Is this a TODO item? --- ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think what you are saying is: VACUUM places blocks so that they are > > immediately reused. This stops shared_buffers from

Re: [HACKERS] Dirty pages in freelist cause WAL stuck

2006-12-28 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 05:53:06PM +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another connected thought is the idea of a having a FullBufferList - the > > opposite of a free buffer list. When VACUUM/INSERT/COPY fills a block we > > notify the buffer manager that t

Re: [HACKERS] Dirty pages in freelist cause WAL stuck

2006-12-19 Thread ITAGAKI Takahiro
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think what you are saying is: VACUUM places blocks so that they are > immediately reused. This stops shared_buffers from being polluted by > vacuumed-blocks, but it also means that almost every write becomes a > backend dirty write when VACUUM is workin

Re: [HACKERS] Dirty pages in freelist cause WAL stuck

2006-12-18 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 11:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think what you are saying is: VACUUM places blocks so that they are > > immediately reused. This stops shared_buffers from being polluted by > > vacuumed-blocks, but it also means that almost every

Re: [HACKERS] Dirty pages in freelist cause WAL stuck

2006-12-18 Thread Tom Lane
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think what you are saying is: VACUUM places blocks so that they are > immediately reused. This stops shared_buffers from being polluted by > vacuumed-blocks, but it also means that almost every write becomes a > backend dirty write when VACUUM is workin

Re: [HACKERS] Dirty pages in freelist cause WAL stuck

2006-12-18 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 11:55 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: > I'm testing the recently changes of WAL entries for freezing-tuples. > VACUUM FREEZE took more time. The cause seems to be flushing WAL buffers. Great thinking. > Vacuuming processes free buffers into freelist. The buffers in freelist

[HACKERS] Dirty pages in freelist cause WAL stuck

2006-12-17 Thread ITAGAKI Takahiro
Hello, I'm testing the recently changes of WAL entries for freezing-tuples. VACUUM FREEZE took more time. The cause seems to be flushing WAL buffers. Vacuuming processes free buffers into freelist. The buffers in freelist is preferentially used on next allocation of buffers. Then, if the buffer i