Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: xlog.c: WALInsertLock vs. WALWriteLock

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, fazool mein <fazoolmein(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: xlog.c: WALInsertLock vs. WALWriteLock
Date: 2010-10-27 15:06:17
Message-ID: 1288191884-sup-5858@alvh.no-ip.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Excerpts from Markus Wanner's message of mié oct 27 11:44:20 -0300 2010:
> On 10/26/2010 05:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > And horrible for performance, I imagine.  Those locks are highly trafficked.
> 
> Note, however, that offloading this to the file-system just moves
> congestion there. So we are effectively saying that we expect
> filesystems to do a better job (in that aspect) than our WAL implementation.

Well, you can just read at your pace from the filesystem; the data is
going to stay there for a long time.  WAL buffers are constantly moving,
and aren't as big.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Aidan Van DykDate: 2010-10-27 15:16:03
Subject: Bikeshedding on enum vocabulary
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2010-10-27 14:57:54
Subject: Re: add label to enum syntax

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group