Re: Group Commit

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Group Commit
Date: 2007-04-09 22:52:19
Message-ID: 15081.1176159139@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I've been working on the patch to enhance our group commit behavior. The
> patch is a dirty hack at the moment, but I'm settled on the algorithm
> I'm going to use and I know the issues involved.

One question that just came to mind is whether Simon's no-commit-wait
patch doesn't fundamentally alter the context of discussion for this.
Aside from the prospect that people won't really care about group commit
if they can just use the periodic-WAL-sync approach, ISTM that one way
to get group commit is to just make everybody wait for the dedicated
WAL writer to write their commit record. With a sufficiently short
delay between write/fsync attempts in the background process, won't
that net out at about the same place as a complicated group-commit
patch?

regards, tom lane

In response to

  • Group Commit at 2007-03-29 10:52:15 from Heikki Linnakangas

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Sherry 2007-04-10 00:55:47 Re: Adjusting index special storage for pg_filedump's convenience
Previous Message Weslee Bilodeau 2007-04-09 21:40:28 Re: Partitioned tables constraint_exclusion