Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>,Mark Cave-Ayland <m(dot)cave-ayland(at)webbased(dot)co(dot)uk>,"'Manfred Koizar'" <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>,"'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations
Date: 2005-06-01 14:05:13
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> If I/O is a problem, then surely you will agree that PreAllocXLog is
> still required and should not be run by a backend?

It is still required, but it isn't run by backends --- it's fired off
during checkpoints.  I think there was some discussion recently about
making it more aggressive about allocating future segments; which
strikes me as a good idea.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-06-01 14:07:36
Subject: Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-06-01 14:01:06
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group