----- Цитат от Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com), на 28.02.2012 в 19:25 -----
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: >> How hard would it be to dummy up a bgwriter which, every time it wakes >> up, it forks off a child process to actually do the write, and then >> the real one just waits for the child to exit? If it didn't have to >> correctly handle signals, SINVAL, and such, it should be just a few >> lines of code, but I don't know how much we can ignore signals and >> such even just for testing purposes. My thought here is that the >> kernel is getting in a snit over one process doing all the writing on >> the system, and is punishing that process in a way that ruins things >> for everyone. > > I would assume the only punishment that the kernel would inflict would > be to put the bgwriter to sleep. That would make the bgwriter less > effective, of course, but it shouldn't make it worse than no bgwriter > at all. Unless it does it some really stupid way, like making > bgwriter sleep while it holds some lock. > > But maybe I'm missing something - what do you have in mind? > > -- > 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 > > -- Luben Karavelov
