| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | paolo romano <paolo(dot)romano(at)yahoo(dot)it>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: MultiXacts & WAL |
| Date: | 2006-06-17 19:22:41 |
| Message-ID: | 200606171222.41942.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom, Paolo,
> Yeah, it's difficult to believe that multixact stuff could form a
> noticeable fraction of the total WAL load, except perhaps under really
> pathological circumstances, because the code just isn't supposed to be
> exercised often. So I don't think this is worth pursuing. Paolo's free
> to try to prove the opposite of course ... but I'd want to see numbers
> not speculation.
I would like to see some checking of this, though. Currently I'm doing
testing of PostgreSQL under very large numbers of connections (2000+) and am
finding that there's a huge volume of xlog output ... far more than
comparable RDBMSes. So I think we are logging stuff we don't really have
to.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Wilbur | 2006-06-17 19:34:19 | let's meet |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-17 19:21:09 | Re: MultiXacts & WAL |