From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux) |
Date: | 2018-05-22 15:57:18 |
Message-ID: | 20180522155718.lj6lf6zhgd4wkh4y@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-05-22 17:37:28 +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Thanks for the patch. Out of curiosity I tried to play with it a bit.
Thanks.
> `pgbench -i -s 100` actually hang on my machine, because the
> copy process ended up with waiting after `pg_uds_send_with_fd`
> had
Hm, that had worked at some point...
> errno == EWOULDBLOCK || errno == EAGAIN
>
> as well as the checkpointer process.
What do you mean with that latest sentence?
> Looks like with the default
> configuration and `max_wal_size=1GB` it writes more than reads to a
> socket, and a buffer eventually becomes full.
That's intended to then wake up the checkpointer immediately, so it can
absorb the requests. So something isn't right yet.
> I've increased SO_RCVBUF/SO_SNDBUF and `max_wal_size` independently to
> check it, and in both cases the problem disappeared (but I assume only
> for this particular scale). Is it something that was already
> considered?
It's considered. Tuning up those might help with performance, but
shouldn't required from a correctness POV. Hm.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lenain | 2018-05-22 16:07:07 | pgAdmin4 Docker behind load balancer |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-05-22 15:56:52 | Re: ppc64le support in 9.3 branch? |