Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: wal_buffers, redux

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: wal_buffers, redux
Date: 2012-03-14 20:53:58
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYw0K+Dp55P1QttCirMBjgZ+srtW=vG2=dWrti2ddws4w@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think my analysis is pretty much a re-wording of yours, but I'd
> emphasize that getting the WALWriteLock is bad not just because they
> fight over the lock, but because someone else (probably background wal
> writer) is camping out on the lock while doing an fsync.

Yeah, good point.

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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2012-03-14 20:56:37
Subject: Re: patch for parallel pg_dump
Previous:From: ktm@rice.eduDate: 2012-03-14 20:53:45
Subject: Re: Faster compression, again

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group