From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CLOG extension |
Date: | 2012-05-03 20:56:34 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobixPF1d3HD2dyyLOJ1CRfnLiZDK2AoJu9XgzfXXz_AMw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Your two paragraphs have roughly opposite arguments...
>
> Doing it every 32 pages would give you 30 seconds to complete the
> fsync, if you kicked it off when half way through the previous file -
> at current maximum rates. So there is utility in doing it in larger
> chunks.
Maybe, but I'd like to try changing one thing at a time. If we change
too much at once, it's likely to be hard to figure out where the
improvement is coming from. Moving the task to a background process
is one improvement; doing it in larger chunks is another. Those
deserve independent testing.
> If it is too slow, we would just wait for sync like we do now.
>
> I think we need another background process since we have both cleaning
> and pre-allocating tasks to perform.
Possibly. I have some fear of ending up with too many background
processes, but we may need them.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-03 21:01:22 | Re: Advisory locks seem rather broken |
Previous Message | james | 2012-05-03 20:03:29 | Re: Have we out-grown Flex? |