Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >>> Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>>> o Automatic adjustment of bgwriter_lru_maxpages > >>>> > >>>> We show this as waiting for performance results. I am thinking we > >>>> should hold this for 8.4. > >>> Agreed. I spent close to a week trying different benchmarks and > >>> configurations and simple test cases on a test server and my laptop, and > >>> couldn't demonstrate bgwriter making a positive impact in any > >>> configuration I tried. The theory behind the patch is sound, but it > >>> looks like a lot more testing and analysis is needed. > >> Wouldn't real world testing be needed to actually gain insight to this > >> patch? > > > > I would expect a fairly static benchmark workload to benefit from having > > a bgwriter, more so than more unpredictable real world applications. > > Hmmm, I find that real world applications are quite predictable over > time. Certainly you have spikes (good pr, whatever) but in general with > a little bit of monitoring it is quite possible to evaluate a generally > expected result. > > I guess my point is, if the patch looks good and does not appear to hurt > anything, why not apply it? At least that way we can start to review the > progress of the feature itself as it starts to see use.
Yeah, you mean like commit_delay. It really worked great, that reviewing of a feature, you know. It only took 3 years until someone realized that it didn't work as advertised. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/5ZYLFMCVHXC "En las profundidades de nuestro inconsciente hay una obsesiva necesidad de un universo lógico y coherente. Pero el universo real se halla siempre un paso más allá de la lógica" (Irulan) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster