On 07/18/2012 12:00 PM, Greg Smith wrote:

The second justification for the split was that it seems easier to get a low power result from, which I believe was the angle Peter Geoghegan was working when this popped up originally. The checkpointer has to run sometimes, but only at a 50% duty cycle as it's tuned out of the box. It seems nice to be able to approach that in a way that's power efficient without coupling it to whatever heartbeat the BGW is running at. I could even see people changing the frequencies for each independently depending on expected system load. Tune for lower power when you don't expect many users, that sort of thing.

Yeah - I'm already seeing benefits from that on my laptop, with much less need to stop Pg when I'm not using it.

Craig Ringer

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to