Re: Group Commit

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Group Commit
Date: 2007-04-13 14:33:18
Message-ID: 1176474798.3635.119.camel@silverbirch.site
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 11:40 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> >> I've been working on the patch to enhance our group commit behavior. The
> >> patch is a dirty hack at the moment, but I'm settled on the algorithm
> >> I'm going to use and I know the issues involved.
> >
> > One question that just came to mind is whether Simon's no-commit-wait
> > patch doesn't fundamentally alter the context of discussion for this.

I was certainly intending that it would.

> > Aside from the prospect that people won't really care about group commit
> > if they can just use the periodic-WAL-sync approach, ISTM that one way
> > to get group commit is to just make everybody wait for the dedicated
> > WAL writer to write their commit record. With a sufficiently short
> > delay between write/fsync attempts in the background process, won't
> > that net out at about the same place as a complicated group-commit
> > patch?
>
> Possibly. To get efficient group commit there would need to be some kind
> of signaling between the WAL writer and normal backends. I think there
> is some in the patch, but I'm not sure if it gives efficient group
> commit. A constant delay will just give us something similar to
> commit_delay.

Agreed.

> I've refrained from spending time on group commit until the
> commit-no-wait patch lands, because it's going to conflict anyway. I'm
> starting to feel we should not try to rush group commit into 8.3, unless
> it somehow falls out of the commit-no-wait patch by accident, given that
> we're past feature freeze and coming up with a proper group commit
> algorithm would need a lot of research and testing. Better do it for 8.4
> with more time, we've got enough features on plate for 8.3 anyway.

My feeling was that I couldn't get both done for 8.3, and that including
the WAL Writer in 8.3 would make the dev path clearer for a later
attempt upon group commit.

I think it was worth exploring whether it would be easy, but I think we
can see it'll take a lot of work to make it "fly right".

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-04-13 14:36:44 Re: [HACKERS] Full page writes improvement, code update
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2007-04-13 14:03:44 Re: conflicting gettimeofday with MinGW