On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 22:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Hmmm. I seem to recall asking myself why xl_prev existed if it wasn't
> > used, but passed that by. Damn.
> I couldn't believe it'd been overlooked this long, either. It's the
> sort of thing that you assume got done the first time :-(
Guess it shows how infrequently PostgreSQL crashes and recovers.
> > PreAllocXLog was already a reason to have somebody prepare new xlog
> > files ahead of them being used. Surely the right solution here is to
> > have that agent prepare fresh/zeroed files prior to them being required.
> Uh, why? That doubles the amount of physical I/O required to maintain
> the WAL, and AFAICS it doesn't really add any safety that we can't get
> in a more intelligent fashion.
OK, I agree that the xl_prev linkage is the more intelligent way to go.
If I/O is a problem, then surely you will agree that PreAllocXLog is
still required and should not be run by a backend? Thats going to show
as a big response time spike for that user.
Thats the last bastion - the other changes are gonna smooth response
times right down, so can we do something with PreAllocXLog too?
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2005-06-01 08:57:26|
|Subject: Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code|
|Previous:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2005-06-01 08:44:24|
|Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?|