On Sat, 2007-03-10 at 09:42 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote: > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > COPY command now also uses this hint, to allow test results and > > discussion. Others could also, perhaps needing different values. > > Hm. It occurs to me that different commands may want different size buffer > rings.
Yes, thats noted in comments in the patch. scan_recycle_buffers was designed to allow us to test which types of scan benefit from which settings. > As I understand it the reason your buffer rings are more than just a single > target buffer are: > > 1) For sequential scans because it creates a window for synchronized > sequential scans. > > 2) For dirty buffers because the dirty evicting the dirty buffer will force an > XLogFlush and we want to give a chance for the WAL pointer to advance past > the buffer's LSN. Ie, to allow other transactions to do our fsync for us > since it won't cost them much extra if anything. > > Can you log whenever your ring buffer finds a provides a dirty buffer whose > LSN requires syncing the WAL log? That will help you figure out how large a > ring buffer you need to guarantee property 2. Hmm, again your thoughts mirrored my own, but this time you're slightly ahead of me. I was just looking into the possibility of adaptive scans, to allow synch scans to force the scan_recycle_buffer size higher. I think having the size of the buffer vary during a scan seems sensible also, within min and max limits. I'll post some further thoughts tomorrow. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
