On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 05:00:49PM -0500, Qingqing Zhou wrote: > > > 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.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't that only help if you were manually issuing checkpoints? -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
