On 2017-02-01 20:38:58 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2017-02-01 20:30:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> > On 2016-11-28 11:40:53 -0800, Jim Nasby wrote: > >> >> With current limits, the most bgwriter can do (with 8k pages) is 1000 > >> >> pages > >> >> * 100 times/sec = 780MB/s. It's not hard to exceed that with modern > >> >> hardware. Should we increase the limit on bgwriter_lru_maxpages? > >> > > >> > FWIW, I think working on replacing bgwriter (e.g. by working on the > >> > patch I send with a POC replacement) wholesale is a better approach than > >> > spending time increasing limits. > >> > >> I'm happy to see it replaced, but increasing the limits is about three > >> orders of magnitude less work than replacing it, so let's not block > >> this on the theory that the other thing would be better. > > > > I seriously doubt you can meaningfully exceed 780MB/s with the current > > bgwriter. So it's not like the limits are all that relevant right now. > > Sigh. The patch is harmless and there are 4 or 5 votes in favor of > it, one of which clearly states that the person involved has hit seen > it be a problem in real workloads. Do we really have to argue about > this?
I don't mind increasing the limit, it's harmless. I just seriously doubt it actually addresses any sort of problem. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
