On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > It sounds like worrying about this would be much more interesting on a > machine that is seeing both a fairly heavy IO load (meaning checkpoint > will both take longer and affect other workloads more) and is seeing a > pretty high rate of buffer updates (meaning that we'd likely do a bunch > of extra work as part of the checkpoint if we didn't take note of > exactly what buffers needed to be flushed). Unfortunately I don't think > there's any way for the backend to know much about either condition > right now, so it couldn't decide when it made sense to make a list of > buffers to flush. Maybe in the future... > The senario you mentioned is happened in many OLTP applications. No need for backend to know this -- we can leave the decision to the DBA: CHECKPOINT FULL or CHECPOINT PARTIAL. If you got some machines can observe its CHECKPOINT duration, that would be sweet. Regards, Qingqing ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
