On 27 June 2012 23:01, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 1. Are there any call sites from which this should be disabled, either
> because the optimization won't help, or because the caller is holding
> a lock that we don't want them sitting on for a moment longer than
> necessary? I think the worst case is that we're doing something like
> splitting the root page of a btree, and now nobody can walk the btree
> until the flush finishes, and here we are doing an "unnecessary"
> sleep. I am not sure where I can construct a workload where this is a
> real as opposed to a theoretical problem, though. So maybe we should
> just not worry about it. It suffices for this to be an improvement
> over the status quo; it doesn't have to be perfect. Thoughts?
Let's put this in now, without too much fiddling. There is already a
GUC to disable it, so measurements can be made to see if this causes
If there are problems, we fix them. We can't second guess everything.
> 2. Should we rename the GUCs, since this patch will cause them to
> control WAL flush in general, as opposed to commit specifically?
> Peter Geoghegan and Simon were arguing that we should retitle it to
> group_commit_delay rather than just commit_delay, but that doesn't
> seem to be much of an improvement in describing what the new behavior
> will actually be, and I am doubtful that it is worth creating a naming
> incompatibility with previous releases for a cosmetic change. I
> suggested wal_flush_delay, but there's no consensus on that.
Again, leave the naming of that for later. The idea of a rename came
from yourself, IIRC.
> The XLByteLE test four lines from the bottom should happen before we
> consider whether to sleep, because it's possible that we'll discover
> that our flush request has already been satisfied and exit without
> doing anything, in which case the sleep is a waste. The attached
> version adjusts the logic accordingly.
I thought there already was a test like that earlier in the flush.
I agree there needs to be one.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Daniel Farina||Date: 2012-06-28 08:25:15|
|Subject: Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers|
|Previous:||From: Amit Kapila||Date: 2012-06-28 06:20:49|
|Subject: Re: WIP patch for Todo Item : Provide fallback_application_name in contrib/pgbench, oid2name, and dblink|