Re: An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention
Date: 2016-12-22 17:59:50
Message-ID: 0d09777a-c7de-e054-7184-94813cd623d6@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/22/2016 04:00 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> ...
>
> \t
> select wait_event_type, wait_event from pg_stat_activity where pid !=
> pg_backend_pid();
> \watch 0.5
> HEAD
> ------------------------
> 48642 LWLockNamed | WALWriteLock
>
> With Patch
> ----------------------------------
> 31889 LWLockNamed | WALFlushLock
> 25212 LWLockNamed | WALWriteLock
>

How do these counts compare to the other wait events? For example
CLogControlLock, which is what Amit's patch [1] is about?

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/84c22fbb-b9c4-a02f-384b-b4feb2c67193%402ndquadrant.com

regards

--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-12-22 18:02:39 Re: Potential data loss of 2PC files
Previous Message Joe Conway 2016-12-22 17:54:32 Re: Getting rid of "unknown error" in dblink and postgres_fdw