Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 950B52E022A; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:55:31 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21074-09; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:55:23 -0400 (AST) Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-159.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.159]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71FB62E018A; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:55:25 -0400 (AST) Received: from perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (200-126-113-152.bk8-dsl.surnet.cl [200.126.113.152]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m0KJtWr0016268 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:55:35 -0800 Received: by perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0012647BC7; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:55:19 -0300 (CLST) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:55:19 -0300 From: Alvaro Herrera To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Cc: Hackers Subject: bgwriter_lru_multiplier blurbs inconsistent Message-ID: <20080120195519.GD22740@alvh.no-ip.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (lists.commandprompt.com [207.173.203.159]); Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:55:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200801/20 X-Sequence-Number: 4749 Is the bgwriter_lru_multiplier parameter a limit on the number to scan or to write? GUC and docs seem to contradict one another. GUC says #: utils/misc/guc.c:1834 #, fuzzy msgid "Background writer multiplier on average buffers to scan per round." The docs say Unless limited by bgwriter_lru_maxpages, the number of dirty buffers written in each round is determined by reference to the number of new buffers that have been needed by server processes during recent rounds. This number is multiplied by bgwriter_lru_multiplier to arrive at the estimate of the number of buffers that will be needed during the next round. Which one is correct? Do we need a correction of either? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.