On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Yes, they would still need to talk. But the good news is that they > only actually need to talk once per checkpoint cycle so we can buffer > them to a certain extent in shared memory to remove the worst part of > such contention.
Yeah, some kind of special-purpose communication method between the cleaning scan and the checkpoint process might help, if the lock contention turns out to be a problem in practice. Then again, maybe I'm overthinking things: there's zero sign in any profiling I've done that BgWriterCommLock is even mildly contended, so even worrying about it at this point might be a waste of time. > Checkpointing needs a little more time in its diary to receive those > messages than it has right now, so there's no easy route. Yeah. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
