Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer

From: Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer
Date: 2011-09-20 15:01:51
Message-ID: CABRT9RACQK=aQeW=71j3HaGpobb1Y66jQGBMoKfsWWck0=2bEg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 01:53, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> This patch splits bgwriter into 2 processes: checkpointer and
> bgwriter, seeking to avoid contentious changes. Additional changes are
> expected in this release to build upon these changes for both new
> processes, though this patch stands on its own as both a performance
> vehicle and in some ways a refcatoring to simplify the code.

While you're already splitting up bgwriter, could there be any benefit
to spawning a separate bgwriter process for each tablespace?

If your database has one tablespace on a fast I/O system and another
on a slow one, the slow tablespace would also bog down background
writing for the fast tablespace. But I don't know whether that's
really a problem or not.

Regards,
Marti

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2011-09-20 15:03:00 Re: Back-branch releases upcoming this week
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-09-20 14:57:51 Re: Back-branch releases upcoming this week