On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> At any rate, I'm somewhat less convinced that the split was a good
>> idea than I was when we did it, mostly because we haven't really gone
>> anywhere with it subsequently.
> BTW, while we are on the subject: hasn't this split completely broken
> the statistics about backend-initiated writes?

Yes, it seems to have done just that.  The comment for
ForwardFsyncRequest is a few bricks short of a load too:

 * Whenever a backend is compelled to write directly to a relation
 * (which should be seldom, if the checkpointer is getting its job done),
 * the backend calls this routine to pass over knowledge that the relation
 * is dirty and must be fsync'd before next checkpoint.  We also use this
 * opportunity to count such writes for statistical purposes.

Line 2 seems to have been mechanically changed from "background
writer" to "checkpointer", but of course it should still say
"background writer" in this case.

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:

Reply via email to