On Wednesday 17 November 2010 02:04:28 Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On Wednesday 17 November 2010 01:51:28 Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Well, there's a forced fsync after writing the last page of an xlog
> >> file, but I don't believe that proves that more than 16MB of xlog
> >> buffers is useless. Other processes could still be busy filling the
> >> buffers.
> > Maybe I am missing something, but I think the relevant
> > AdvanceXLInsertBuffer() is currently called with WALInsertLock held?
> The fsync is associated with the write, which is not done with insert
> lock held. We're not quite that dumb.
Ah, I see. The XLogWrite in AdvanceXLInsertBuffer is only happening if the head
of the buffer gets to the tail - which is more likely if the wal buffers are
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2010-11-17 01:17:42|
|Subject: Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-11-17 01:04:28|
|Subject: Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1? |