On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > This refactoring idea will make that hard to keep around. I think this is > OK though. Switching to a latch based design should eliminate the > bgwriter_delay, which means you won't have this worst case of a 200ms stall > while heavy activity is incoming.
I'm a strong proponent of that 2 minute cycle, so I'd vote for finding a way to keep it around. But I don't think that (or 200 ms wakeups) should be the primary thing driving the background writer, either. -- 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
