|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] 2PC state files on shared memory|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Quite aside from that, the fixed size of shared memory makes this seem
>> pretty impractical.
> Most state files are small. If one doesn't fit in the area reserved for
> this, it's written to disk as usual. It's just an optimization.
What evidence do you have for that assumption? And what's "small" anyway?
I think setting the size parameter for this would be a frightfully
difficult problem; the fact that average installations wouldn't use it
doesn't make that any better for those who would. After our bad
experiences with fixed-size FSM, I'm pretty wary of introducing new
fixed-size structures that the user is expected to figure out how to
> I'm a bit disappointed by the performance gains. I would've expected
> more, given a decent battery-backed-up cache to buffer the WAL fsyncs.
> But it looks like they're still causing the most overhead, even with a
> battery-backed-up cache.
If you can't demonstrate order-of-magnitude speedups, I think we
shouldn't touch this.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2009-08-08 15:43:07||Re: [PATCH] 2PC state files on shared memory|
|Previous Message||Bruce Momjian||2009-08-08 14:10:36||Re: Alpha releases: How to tag|