From:
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To:
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc:
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>,
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>,
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org,
pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject:
Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging freezing
Date:
2006-10-31 21:25:18
Message-ID:
8993.1162329918@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat )
Thread:
2006-10-24 07:20:13 from Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
2006-10-24 12:11:33 from Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
2006-10-24 14:11:43 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-10-27 15:44:52 from "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
2006-10-27 16:01:12 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-10-27 21:19:54 from "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
2006-10-27 21:23:38 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-10-27 22:03:17 from "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
2006-10-30 13:42:27 from "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
2006-10-30 14:08:37 from "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
2006-10-30 16:20:56 from Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
2006-10-30 17:05:19 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-10-30 20:30:19 from "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
2006-10-30 21:39:58 from Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
2006-10-30 22:10:08 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-10-30 21:58:14 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-10-31 00:01:00 from "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
2006-10-31 00:18:50 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-10-31 00:58:40 from "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
2006-10-31 01:40:28 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-10-31 14:24:12 from "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
2006-10-31 10:41:10 from Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
2006-10-31 15:06:40 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-10-31 16:04:55 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-10-31 19:49:27 from Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
2006-10-31 19:56:59 from Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
2006-10-31 21:25:18 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-10-31 21:10:31 from "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
2006-11-01 14:50:56 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-11-02 21:50:31 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-11-02 23:57:08 from "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
2006-11-03 10:40:14 from "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
2006-11-03 13:45:04 from Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
2006-11-04 17:35:16 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-11-05 09:21:05 from "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
2006-11-05 16:26:20 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-11-05 17:01:54 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-11-05 18:24:55 from "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
2006-11-05 18:28:34 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-11-05 19:47:28 from Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
2006-11-05 21:39:25 from "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
2006-11-05 21:44:43 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-11-05 09:52:36 from "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
2006-11-05 16:29:06 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2006-10-31 16:23:40 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Lists:
pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Huh, but the log would not be flushed for each operation that the vacuum
> logs. Only when it's going to commit.
It strikes me that the vacuum cost delay feature omits to consider
generation of WAL records as a cost factor. It may not be a big problem
though, as long as we can limit the number of records created to one or
two per page --- then you can see it as just a component of the "dirtied
a page" cost. If we made a separate WAL record for each tuple then it
could be important to account for.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
Next :From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-10-31 21:44:44Subject : Re: zic data updates Previous :From : Joachim WielandDate : 2006-10-31 21:21:51Subject : zic data updates
pgsql-patches by date
Next :From: Dave CramerDate: 2006-11-01 03:27:46Subject : Extended protocol loggingPrevious :From : Simon RiggsDate : 2006-10-31 21:10:31Subject : Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging freezing
