From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Removing PD_ALL_VISIBLE |
Date: | 2013-01-17 19:58:41 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJNJ58=Z_9_NO81oTq8zCgsomHxDUxEH+Rvj6B-m09oSg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17 January 2013 15:14, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> On 17.01.2013 16:53, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Pavan Deolasee
>> <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>> May be you've already addressed that concern with the proven
>>> performance numbers, but I'm not sure.
>>
>>
>> It would be nice to hear what Heikki's reasons were for adding
>> PD_ALL_VISIBLE in the first place.
>
>
> The idea was to avoid clearing the bit in the VM page on every update, when
> the bit is known to not be set, ie. when the PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag is not set.
> I assumed the traffic and contention on the VM page would be a killer
> otherwise. I don't remember if I ever actually tested that though. Maybe I
> was worrying about nothing and hitting the VM page on every update is ok.
Presumably we remember the state of the VM so we can skip the re-visit
after every write?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2013-01-17 20:00:16 | Re: Removing PD_ALL_VISIBLE |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-01-17 19:57:28 | Re: Re: Slave enters in recovery and promotes when WAL stream with master is cut + delay master/slave |