This has been saved for the 8.4 release:


Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't really see why it's "overkill".  
> Well I think it may be overkill in that we'll be writing out buffers that
> still have a decent chance of being hit again. Effectively what we'll be doing
> in the approximated LRU queue is writing out any buffer that reaches the 80%
> point down the list. Even if it later gets hit and pulled up to the head
> again.
> I suppose that's not wrong though, the whole idea of the clock sweep is that
> that's precisely the level of precision to which it makes sense to approximate
> the LRU. Ie, that any point in the top 20% is equivalent to any other and when
> we use a buffer we want to promote it to somewhere "near" the head but any
> point in the top 20% is good enough. Then any point in the last 20% should be
> effectively "good enough" too be considered a target buffer to clean as well.
> If we find it's overkill then what we should consider doing is raising
> BM_MAX_USAGE_COUNT. That's effectively tuning the percentage of the lru chain
> that we decide we try to keep clean.
> -- 
>   Gregory Stark
>   EnterpriseDB
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to