Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-12-27 at 22:21, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Should we consider at least adjusting the meaning of bgwriter_percent?
> Yes. As things stand, this is the only change that seems safe.
> Here's a very short patch that implements this change within BufferSync
> in bufmgr.c 
> - No algorithm changes
> - No error message changes
> - Only change is the call to StrategyDirtyBufferList is made using the
> maximum number of buffers that will be cleaned, rather than uselessly
> trawling through all of shared_buffers
> This changes the meaning of bgwriter_percent from "percent of dirty
> buffers" to "percent of shared_buffers". The default settings of 1% of
> 1000 buffers gives up to 10 dirty block writes every 250ms
> Benefit: allows performance tuning by increases options for setting
> bgwriter_delay which would otherwise have an ineffectually high minimum
> setting
> Risk: low
> 1-line doc patch to follow, if this is approved.

I am not objecting to the patch, but what value is there in having both
bgwriter_percent and bgwriter_maxpages?  Seems both are redundant and
that one would be enough.

  Bruce Momjian                        |               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
    (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Reply via email to