Re: WALInsertLock contention

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WALInsertLock contention
Date: 2011-06-09 03:27:57
Message-ID: BANLkTini_6-YoOy+hzWdkCfRifEsqG5R7A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> You're probably right.  I think though there is enough hypothetical
> upside to the private buffer case that it should be attempted just to
> see what breaks. The major tricky bit is dealing with the new
> pin/unpin mechanics.  I'd like to give it the 'college try'. (being
> typically vain and attention seeking, this is right up my alley) :-D.

Well, I think it's fairly clear what will break:

- If you make the data-file buffer completely private, then what will
happen when some other backend needs to read or write that buffer?
- If you make the XLOG spool private, you will not be able to checkpoint.

But I just work here. Feel free to hit your head on that brick wall
all you like. If you manage to make a hole (in the wall, not your
head), I'll be as happy as anyone to climb through...!

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-06-09 03:40:01 Re: SSI work for 9.1
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-06-09 03:24:34 literature on write-ahead logging