Re: RE: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/access/transam ( xact.c xlog.c)
Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>,
Vadim Mikheev <vmikheev@sectorbase.com>, "'Tom Lane'" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>, peter_e@gmx.net, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2000-11-16T20:05:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> [001116 11:59] wrote: > > At 02:13 PM 11/16/00 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > >> I think the default should probably be no delay, and the documentation > > >> on enabling this needs to be clear and obvious (i.e. hard to miss). > > > > > >I just talked to Tom Lane about this. I think a sleep(0) just before > > >the flush would be the best. It would reliquish the cpu slice if > > >another process is ready to run. If no other backend is running, it > > >probably just returns. If there is another one, it gives it a chance to > > >complete. On return from sleep(0), it can check if it still needs to > > >flush. This would tend to bunch up flushers so they flush only once, > > >while not delaying cases where only one backend is running. > > > > This sounds like an interesting approach, yes. > > In OS kernel design, you try to avoid process herding bottlenecks. > Here, we want them herded, and giving up the CPU may be the best way to > do it. Yes, but if everyone yeilds you're back where you started, and with 128 or more backends do you really want to cause possibly that many context switches per fsync? -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."