On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 6:05 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Takayuki Tsunakawa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I consider that smoothing the load (more meaningfully, response
time)
has higher priority over checkpoint punctuality in a practical
sense,
because the users of a system benefit from
Kevin Grittner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I consider that smoothing the load (more meaningfully, response time)
has higher priority over checkpoint punctuality in a practical sense,
I agree with that.
I agree with checkpoint_time is not so important, but we should
respect
Hello, Mr. Grittner,
From: Kevin Grittner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We have 3,000 directly connected users, various business partner
interfaces, and public web entry doing OLTP in 72 databases
distributed
around the state, with real-time replication to central databases
which
are considered derived
From: ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you use the same delay autovacuum uses?
What do you mean 'the same delay'? Autovacuum does VACUUM, not
CHECKPOINT.
If you think cost-based-delay, I think we cannot use it here. It's
hard to
estimate how much
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, if I understand correctly, instead of doing a buffer scan, write(),
and fsync(), and recyle the WAL files at checkpoint time, you delay the
scan/write part with the some delay.
Exactly. Actual behavior of checkpoint is
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, if I understand correctly, instead of doing a buffer scan, write(),
and fsync(), and recyle the WAL files at checkpoint time, you delay the
scan/write part with the some delay.
Exactly. Actual behavior of checkpoint is not changed by the patch.
