Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging freezing

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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-10-31 21:44:44 Re: zic data updates
Previous Message Joachim Wieland 2006-10-31 21:21:51 zic data updates

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2006-11-01 03:27:46 Extended protocol logging
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2006-10-31 21:10:31 Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging freezing