Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> Without async commits? Do we really want the walwriter doing the
>> majority of the wal-flushing work for normal commits? It seems like
>> that's not going to be any advantage over just having some random
>> backend do the commit.
> Sure: the advantage is that the backends (ie, user query processing)
> don't get blocked on fsync's. This is not really different from the
> rationale for having the bgwriter. It's probably most useful for large
> transactions, which up to now generally had to stop and flush the WAL
> buffers every few pages worth of WAL output.
I wonder what it would take to offload the CRC calculation to the wal
writer. And if that would then become a bottleneck, making it actually
No, not in this release :).
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2007-07-24 14:29:20|
|Subject: Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22)|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2007-07-24 14:18:04|
|Subject: Re: plperl warnings on win32|