| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |
| Date: | 2014-02-18 01:15:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1wfbW77Xg2Ft0b14wjrfEK=rkB0N1=xMJjfZZmGgZTErQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The current bgwriter_lru_maxpages value limits the background writer
> to a maximum of 4MB/s. If one imagines shared_buffers = 8GB, that
> starts to seem rather low, but I don't have a good feeling for what a
> better value would be.
>
I don't quite understand the point of bgwriter_lru_maxpages in the first
place. What is it supposed to protect us from?
I wonder if that isn't an artefact from when the checkpointer was the same
process as the background writer, to prevent the background writer
functionality from starving the checkpointer functionality.
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-18 01:26:14 | Re: Ctrl+C from sh can shut down daemonized PostgreSQL cluster |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-02-18 00:17:10 | Re: Memory ordering issue in LWLockRelease, WakeupWaiters, WALInsertSlotRelease |