On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 11:15 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > My main point was, that we already do synchronization when writing wal,
> > why not piggyback on this to also update latest snapshot .
> Well, one problem is that it would break sync rep.
Can you elaborate, in what way it "breaks" sync rep ?
> Another problem is that pretty much the last thing I want to do is
> push more work under WALInsertLock. Based on the testing I've done so
> far, it seems like WALInsertLock, ProcArrayLock, and CLogControlLock
> are the main bottlenecks here. I'm focusing on ProcArrayLock and
> CLogControlLock right now, but I am pretty well convinced that
> WALInsertLock is going to be the hardest nut to crack, so putting
> anything more under there seems like it's going in the wrong
probably it is not just the WALInsertLock, but the fact that we have
just one WAL. It can become a bottleneck once we have significant number
of processors fighting to write in single WAL.
> IMHO, anyway.
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-07-28 15:57:18|
|Subject: Re: cheaper snapshots |
|Previous:||From: Hannu Krosing||Date: 2011-07-28 15:35:00|
|Subject: Re: cheaper snapshots|