On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Well, yes they are. They cause unnecessary process wakeups and thereby >> consume cycles even when the database is idle. See for example a >> longstanding complaint here: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252129 >> >> If we're going to go to the trouble of having a mechanism like this, >> I'd like it to fix that problem so I can close out that bug. > > The way the background writer wakes up periodically to absorb fsync requests > is already way too infrequent on a busy system.
Maybe instead of a fixed-duration sleep we could wake it up when it needs to do something. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
